Last week was very big for Sarah Palin and her book tour for "Going Rogue". She was every where from Oprah to Limbaugh. According to an article on Journalism.org she was the third biggest topic for the week. The Associated Press had 11 reporters fact checking her book which caused a bit of stir. The AP article outlined several wrong facts, the article can be read at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091114/ap_on_re_us/us_palin_book_fact_check . They had several issues with the information in the book, but mostly they think that she contradicts her self. For example in her book she talks about how she was frugal with the tax payers money while she traveled as Governor of Alaska. However they claim that while she was mostly frugal, there were some trips that she wasn't and that she cost the state and extra $20,000 by taking her kids with her.
While Palin was on Oprah she made a few comments about the media. She says that they tried to "make over" her family. Give them an image that would fit better in the media. She also made a remark that they didn't pay attention to what mattered. They have an agenda. On Oprah she made an remark about her interview with Katie Couric. Sarah said that the problem with journalism is they twist everything to get the answer they want to hear. Their primary concern is not giving a true representation of who they are interviewing, but rather to meet their own needs.
I think that Sarah has a good point. The media could spend their time showing who these people are. So, has anyone read Sarah's book? Is all of this attention showing the country that she is ready to lead the United States or is it helping those who say she can't?
Friday, November 27, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Climate Change
The climate has been a major concern for many in recent days. We have been talking about cutting emissions for several years with projects like renewable energy sources and more emission efficient cars. We are not the only industrialized nation to work on this. December 7th-18th leaders will be meeting in Copenhagen to discuss global climate change, and President Obama has committed to attend. It is rumored that he will commit to cut the U.S. emissions by 17% below our 2005 levels. Many of the people who are involved in the green movement are happy to hear this news, because President Obama seems to be making a step in a positive direction. They think that the commitment will provide him with incentive to put more resources into developing clean energy and working on cleaning up pollution.
Others feel that pressure to lower emission could cause much needed jobs to be out sourced to underdeveloped countries. It could also cause energy prices to rise. How do you feel about President Obama's commitment to work on our green house gas emissions? Do you think it is just fluff to fill the time in the 24 hour news meida cycle or are we really going to work as a country to have cleaner emissions?
Others feel that pressure to lower emission could cause much needed jobs to be out sourced to underdeveloped countries. It could also cause energy prices to rise. How do you feel about President Obama's commitment to work on our green house gas emissions? Do you think it is just fluff to fill the time in the 24 hour news meida cycle or are we really going to work as a country to have cleaner emissions?
Jobs or the Deficit?
The economy is on a lot of peoples minds these days. Unemployment has been around 10% and doesn't seem to be coming down. Some compare it to the 80's others the great depression, but they are all worried. People with jobs are worried that they want last and some that have jobs are over qualified. People are cutting back and staying home. Critics claim that last years $787 billion bail out did little to help, and the growing deficit is not helping concerns.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a statement this week that Americans would be willing to accept a larger deficit if it created more jobs. She believes that the president needs to find a "balance" between jobs creation and deficit reduction. She also said that if we don't do something to create more jobs we will head toward depression.
Would you accept a larger deficit for job growth? If they added to the deficit and it did not create job growth or lasting job growth what would the consequences be? Would the risk be to great? Is this just an attempt to scare people into supporting an new "stimulus" ?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made a statement this week that Americans would be willing to accept a larger deficit if it created more jobs. She believes that the president needs to find a "balance" between jobs creation and deficit reduction. She also said that if we don't do something to create more jobs we will head toward depression.
Would you accept a larger deficit for job growth? If they added to the deficit and it did not create job growth or lasting job growth what would the consequences be? Would the risk be to great? Is this just an attempt to scare people into supporting an new "stimulus" ?
What is the best Afganistan stategy?
President Obama has announced that next Tuesday he will hold a national address to outline his Afghanistan strategy from West Point U.S. Military Academy. When I heard this it made me think of President Bush's air craft carrier photos. This is a great location for photo ops to address strategy for the war.
There are many reports as to what he may announce. Everyone agrees that he is in a tough place with this decision. The war has lost support among the American people as well as European people. There are several plans that he has been looking at to pick the best strategy.
The Washington Post has reported that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is in favor of a plan that would deploy between 30,000 and 35,000 additional U.S. troops and call on NATO allies to contribute another 10,000 soldiers. This plan would give General McChrystal about 108,000 troops.
Vice President Biden has been in favor of a plan that calls for training more Afgan forces and intensifying U.S. aerial strikes against al-Qaeda. This plan is favored by most Democrats.
President Karzai said in his inauguration this earier this month that he is hoping for a transition from U.S. to Afghan forces within five years.
President Obama is to make a decision to make all of these people happy. He will most likely form a plan that will be a mixture of these. He has said that we wants a strategy that will finish the job. Many people fear we are spending to much money, time and resources with out a reward. Cost is becoming a major concern with the growing deficet and some congress men have been talking about introducing new taxes to pay for the ongoing war.
I think many people are waiting to see how he handles this situation. It looks as though no matter what he chooses to do people are going to be unhappy with him. If he doesn't give support to the troops people will be saying the is unpatriotic and if he does they will say we are spending to much money. I am not sure what the best choice is, but I am glad I don't have to make it. What do you think is the best choice?
There are many reports as to what he may announce. Everyone agrees that he is in a tough place with this decision. The war has lost support among the American people as well as European people. There are several plans that he has been looking at to pick the best strategy.
The Washington Post has reported that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is in favor of a plan that would deploy between 30,000 and 35,000 additional U.S. troops and call on NATO allies to contribute another 10,000 soldiers. This plan would give General McChrystal about 108,000 troops.
Vice President Biden has been in favor of a plan that calls for training more Afgan forces and intensifying U.S. aerial strikes against al-Qaeda. This plan is favored by most Democrats.
President Karzai said in his inauguration this earier this month that he is hoping for a transition from U.S. to Afghan forces within five years.
President Obama is to make a decision to make all of these people happy. He will most likely form a plan that will be a mixture of these. He has said that we wants a strategy that will finish the job. Many people fear we are spending to much money, time and resources with out a reward. Cost is becoming a major concern with the growing deficet and some congress men have been talking about introducing new taxes to pay for the ongoing war.
I think many people are waiting to see how he handles this situation. It looks as though no matter what he chooses to do people are going to be unhappy with him. If he doesn't give support to the troops people will be saying the is unpatriotic and if he does they will say we are spending to much money. I am not sure what the best choice is, but I am glad I don't have to make it. What do you think is the best choice?
Supreme Court Update
I posted a story a while back about the Supreme Court and the lack of attention that they receive in the media. I really like these stories because no matter what source you get the story from the information is the same. They do not have a bias either way its just a report of what our government is doing. When I was looking over some of the new cases they are hearing, one story caught my attention. Earlier this month they looked at the question "Does the imposition of a life sentence without parole on a juvenile convicted of a non-homicidal offense violate the 8th amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment"?
Two Florida cases are currently under review. One is Joe Sullivan he was sentenced to life without parole at the age of 13 for raping an elderly woman and has been serving his sentence for 20 years. The second is Terrance Graham sentenced after committing armed robberies at 16 and 17 and he has been serving for 5 years. No one was killed in either these incidents.
Currently more that 2,000 juveniles are serving life without parole for murder throughout the country, and about 100 are serving for non homicide crimes. Many people think this punishment is to harsh for children. No other country has punishment this harsh for children.
Justice Kennedy said " From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minors character deficiencies will be reformed" Many of the people who agree with this say that after they have served some time and have finished their education they would be able to live a productive life.
The states want to retain their rights to punish how ever they see fit to keep the general population safe.
The courts have not issued a ruleing, but what do you think? Should people be held responsible for their actions at any age or should they get more slack because they are young? Do states have a responsibility to the children or the general population? Would it best to find more middle ground?
Two Florida cases are currently under review. One is Joe Sullivan he was sentenced to life without parole at the age of 13 for raping an elderly woman and has been serving his sentence for 20 years. The second is Terrance Graham sentenced after committing armed robberies at 16 and 17 and he has been serving for 5 years. No one was killed in either these incidents.
Currently more that 2,000 juveniles are serving life without parole for murder throughout the country, and about 100 are serving for non homicide crimes. Many people think this punishment is to harsh for children. No other country has punishment this harsh for children.
Justice Kennedy said " From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minors character deficiencies will be reformed" Many of the people who agree with this say that after they have served some time and have finished their education they would be able to live a productive life.
The states want to retain their rights to punish how ever they see fit to keep the general population safe.
The courts have not issued a ruleing, but what do you think? Should people be held responsible for their actions at any age or should they get more slack because they are young? Do states have a responsibility to the children or the general population? Would it best to find more middle ground?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
White House Commuications
I was looking through some online news outlets tonight and I found relatively small articles reporting that White House Communications Director Anita Dunn will be stepping down from office as of the
end of November. They say that it was planned she would step down by the end of the year. Dan Pfeiffer will be taking her place, and he is no stranger to communications He worked with Obama during the campaign. However, I can't help but think that this will have an effect on the media coverage. Several large issues are currently undecided and rapidly approaching including Afghanistan and Health Care. I found a video of Dunn talking to CNN news in early October. She basically said that the administration viewed Fox news as opinion based television that claimed to be news. She also said that they were and extension of the GOP. Do you think that this change in leadership will have an effect on the medias reports on the administration?
This is an interesting video and offers some great in site of how the administration views the media.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/10/dunn-leaving-white-house/
end of November. They say that it was planned she would step down by the end of the year. Dan Pfeiffer will be taking her place, and he is no stranger to communications He worked with Obama during the campaign. However, I can't help but think that this will have an effect on the media coverage. Several large issues are currently undecided and rapidly approaching including Afghanistan and Health Care. I found a video of Dunn talking to CNN news in early October. She basically said that the administration viewed Fox news as opinion based television that claimed to be news. She also said that they were and extension of the GOP. Do you think that this change in leadership will have an effect on the medias reports on the administration?
This is an interesting video and offers some great in site of how the administration views the media.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/10/dunn-leaving-white-house/
Friday, November 6, 2009
Fort Hood
As I am sure everyone is aware there was a shooting at Fort Hood yesterday. It has been reported that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan armed with a hand gun unloaded at the base, killing 12 people and wounding an additional 31.
Since the story first broke I have read several articles from different websites and watched a news cast, and noticed that all of them presented the same almost scripted report. This is not something that we are used to seeing from the media. They presented the story with an overall tone of sorrow for the families, and trying to put the public at rest. They presented non- partisan reports that reported the information they had without spin or bias. I also noticed a lack of dramatization to the story. The reporters seem to be respectful of the situation and the loss. President Obama even made a statement that said our thoughts and prayers are with the wounded and their families, and we are investigating what happened, and Governor Perry of Texas ordered that all flags be flown at half mass today as a symbol of honor.
It is nice to have everyone set aside their differences to focus on the facts and deliver the information to the people. It is sad that a major tragedy has to occur for the journalist to do this. I think that the public is appreciative of how they are handling the story and they are responsive to this type of reporting. Would you be motivated to watch news broadcast that were like this all the time? Do you think that this is the best way for the media to handle a tragedy?
Since the story first broke I have read several articles from different websites and watched a news cast, and noticed that all of them presented the same almost scripted report. This is not something that we are used to seeing from the media. They presented the story with an overall tone of sorrow for the families, and trying to put the public at rest. They presented non- partisan reports that reported the information they had without spin or bias. I also noticed a lack of dramatization to the story. The reporters seem to be respectful of the situation and the loss. President Obama even made a statement that said our thoughts and prayers are with the wounded and their families, and we are investigating what happened, and Governor Perry of Texas ordered that all flags be flown at half mass today as a symbol of honor.
It is nice to have everyone set aside their differences to focus on the facts and deliver the information to the people. It is sad that a major tragedy has to occur for the journalist to do this. I think that the public is appreciative of how they are handling the story and they are responsive to this type of reporting. Would you be motivated to watch news broadcast that were like this all the time? Do you think that this is the best way for the media to handle a tragedy?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Big business rise or fall?
I read an article in The New York Times Monday titled "Trying to Rein In 'Too Big to Fail' Institutions". This article by Stephen Labaton talks about the options that congress and the Obama administration are exploring to change policies for big business. Barney Frank said that they are working on legislation that would "make it easier for the government to seize control of troubled financial institutions, throw out management, wipe out the shareholders and change the terms of existing loans held by the institution."
Some say that this would make it more costly to run a big business, but it will help to create balance and make them a more stable part of the market. The government fears these huge companies because if they fail they put the whole market at risk. However, voters fear the government expanding its power in this way. Much of this fear is based on distrust of the government. People say that they have not produced many successful programs and this would be to much power for them. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke has said he would prefer to take a more subtle approach to this situation.
I looked at some small business trends from this last year. One article said that up to 7% if the recently unemployed people could start their own business. Over the years big business and outsourcing has lead to huge changes in costumer service levels and has helped to disconnect business from the community. Some people would like to see a decrease in the amount of big business and a shift to more home town business. In some fields we are seeing this shift take place. For example one of the construction industry has taken a huge hit in the economy. So if you need some work done instead of looking in the phone book you call up a friend that needs work. This saves you money and helps your friend at the some time.
Has the Internet and big business made it impossible to go back to small town living? Do you think that family owned business will increase as a result of these now government previsions?
Some say that this would make it more costly to run a big business, but it will help to create balance and make them a more stable part of the market. The government fears these huge companies because if they fail they put the whole market at risk. However, voters fear the government expanding its power in this way. Much of this fear is based on distrust of the government. People say that they have not produced many successful programs and this would be to much power for them. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke has said he would prefer to take a more subtle approach to this situation.
I looked at some small business trends from this last year. One article said that up to 7% if the recently unemployed people could start their own business. Over the years big business and outsourcing has lead to huge changes in costumer service levels and has helped to disconnect business from the community. Some people would like to see a decrease in the amount of big business and a shift to more home town business. In some fields we are seeing this shift take place. For example one of the construction industry has taken a huge hit in the economy. So if you need some work done instead of looking in the phone book you call up a friend that needs work. This saves you money and helps your friend at the some time.
Has the Internet and big business made it impossible to go back to small town living? Do you think that family owned business will increase as a result of these now government previsions?
Monday, October 26, 2009
Relations with Cuba?
I read an article today that says President Obama has ask Spanish leaders to tell Castro that if he changes the way he treats his people we may have better relations. I couldn't help but think of how children act when they are mad. (You tell Johnny that I said he is stupid and I am not talking to him) I wonder what Castro thought of our new president. This move comes after Obama lifted travel restrictions for people who have family their, in April of this year.
I first found this article on Fox so I did a search and found other similar stories. One article is www.reuters.com/article/politicNews/odUSTRE5900TE20091026.
This article says that Obama's attempt to have better relations with Cuba is part of "a new era of U.S. partnership and engagement with Latin America and the Caribbean."
Does Castro care if we like him? Do we care if realations are restored?
I first found this article on Fox so I did a search and found other similar stories. One article is www.reuters.com/article/politicNews/odUSTRE5900TE20091026.
This article says that Obama's attempt to have better relations with Cuba is part of "a new era of U.S. partnership and engagement with Latin America and the Caribbean."
Does Castro care if we like him? Do we care if realations are restored?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Is the Supreme Court a bore?
As we all know the Supreme Court is often viewed as the medias "step child". They are often times over looked and always under reported on. Many people do not know what cases they are hearing until they have been decided. I decided to check in on what they have been up to.
Justice Roberts made a statement this week on a Virginia drinking and driving case. The Virgina Supreme Court ruled that and anonymous tip is not enough to investigate on someone who is possibly driving under the influence. While Roberts says this ruling may have huge consequences they will not review it.
If you want to read the full article: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/20/AR200910201600.html
One case the Court will hear is to "...consider whether judges have the power to release Guantanamo Bay detainees into the U.S. of they have been deemed not to be "enemy combatants"." This issue has come up because the Obama administration is trying to close the Guantanamo facility. The Courts are going against the Obama administration, who think that these choices should be made by the President. Guantanamo is currently detaining 17 Uighurs, Chinese Muslims, who need to be placed. This case could go moot if the Uighurs are placed before the case is decided.
This full article can be found at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/20/AR2009102001289_2.html
Personally I am not sure why these stories do not interest people more. These stories have plenty of conflict and the rulings are going to effect the people, unlike President Obama's Nobel peace prize. Would you be interested in more news from the Supreme Court?
Justice Roberts made a statement this week on a Virginia drinking and driving case. The Virgina Supreme Court ruled that and anonymous tip is not enough to investigate on someone who is possibly driving under the influence. While Roberts says this ruling may have huge consequences they will not review it.
If you want to read the full article: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/20/AR200910201600.html
One case the Court will hear is to "...consider whether judges have the power to release Guantanamo Bay detainees into the U.S. of they have been deemed not to be "enemy combatants"." This issue has come up because the Obama administration is trying to close the Guantanamo facility. The Courts are going against the Obama administration, who think that these choices should be made by the President. Guantanamo is currently detaining 17 Uighurs, Chinese Muslims, who need to be placed. This case could go moot if the Uighurs are placed before the case is decided.
This full article can be found at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/20/AR2009102001289_2.html
Personally I am not sure why these stories do not interest people more. These stories have plenty of conflict and the rulings are going to effect the people, unlike President Obama's Nobel peace prize. Would you be interested in more news from the Supreme Court?
Monday, October 5, 2009
Joy Behar on HLN
CNN's sister network has recently added The Joy Behar Show to its nightly line up. She is already drawling attention to herself by welcoming conflict. Bahar is a self confessed liberal and she has said that she would like to have Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney and other conservative guest on her show.
I have posted a link called EVP that will take you to a short clip of what Behar has to say about Obama's schedule, and a second link to what she has to say to those calling her names.
What do you think? She is a love her or hate her kind of person.
Does she have what it takes to have guest from opposing view points sit down and have a rational discussion on issues? Can she make this concept benefit the views?
I have posted a link called EVP that will take you to a short clip of what Behar has to say about Obama's schedule, and a second link to what she has to say to those calling her names.
What do you think? She is a love her or hate her kind of person.
Does she have what it takes to have guest from opposing view points sit down and have a rational discussion on issues? Can she make this concept benefit the views?
Where is the voice of the people?
After my last post I was still thinking about the meida and the shift to online publications. There have been several events over the last few months (mostly since the town hall health care debates) that have not been covered well by the main stream news outlets. These events include the tea parties and the 912ers plus others.
This last week the President, first lady, and Oprah were pushing for the Olympics to be held in Chicago. While they were lobbying for the Olympics the people of Chicago were holding protest that they didn't want the Olympics in their city. However, I think that I saw 2 (quick) stories on this, while they featured Obama's speech to the Olymic committee on the news.
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that we (the people) elected "representatives" to stand up for what we wanted and make our voice heard. Represent in the dictionary says to present a likeness of. It feels more like they have their own agenda and they spend their time talking the people into supporting their agenda. What has to happen for the media to be the voice of the people instead of the voice of government?
This last week the President, first lady, and Oprah were pushing for the Olympics to be held in Chicago. While they were lobbying for the Olympics the people of Chicago were holding protest that they didn't want the Olympics in their city. However, I think that I saw 2 (quick) stories on this, while they featured Obama's speech to the Olymic committee on the news.
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that we (the people) elected "representatives" to stand up for what we wanted and make our voice heard. Represent in the dictionary says to present a likeness of. It feels more like they have their own agenda and they spend their time talking the people into supporting their agenda. What has to happen for the media to be the voice of the people instead of the voice of government?
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Changes for the meida world--good or bad?
Over the last few days I have seen several articles on where the news comes from. Mostly the articles talk about the information that we, as consumers, receive. The following article "Where the news comes from--and why it matters" is from the pew research website. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1357/newspaper-remain-main-watchdog-and-source-of-news?src=prc-latest&proj=pej
The article says that newspaper reporters are the largest gathers of news, and television and radio mostly use that same information in some form. It went on to say that while newspaper print consumption has declined online readership has increased by 15.8 percent. The news is not going away it is shifting to online outlets.
This information got me thinking about the current recession. Many newspapers have downsized and reporters have been laid off. This would leave a smaller group of people to gather the news. I think that could make bias in the news coverage larger.
The shift to online news consumption opens up a whole new area for bias. On an average day someone logs online to check their email. When the homepage pulls up they read through the major headlines. One of the headlines catch their attention and after a quick google search they have a listing of websites relating to the topic. The information on these websites could be true, false or some were in the middle but the consumer still have many resources at their finger tips.
Journalism is a career. People spend many years studying and building up resouces for this career. They have learned about the responsibillities that come with reporting and the importance of resposible journalism and checking your sources. On the other hand the internet is open to any one with a computer. People mislead others online everyday. My point is the media's shift from print to online is a complicated move. While it is convenient to the consumer there is a great oportunity to diminish trust of the media. On the other hand there are legitimate independant reports online. These independant sites often don't have editors cutting stories becasue they are worried about offending people. They write about what they are passionate about.
These changes are huge. We all know that the change is here, but will it lower the quality of our news or raise it? Also could these changes in the media be partially to blame for the peoples loss of trust in the government?
The article says that newspaper reporters are the largest gathers of news, and television and radio mostly use that same information in some form. It went on to say that while newspaper print consumption has declined online readership has increased by 15.8 percent. The news is not going away it is shifting to online outlets.
This information got me thinking about the current recession. Many newspapers have downsized and reporters have been laid off. This would leave a smaller group of people to gather the news. I think that could make bias in the news coverage larger.
The shift to online news consumption opens up a whole new area for bias. On an average day someone logs online to check their email. When the homepage pulls up they read through the major headlines. One of the headlines catch their attention and after a quick google search they have a listing of websites relating to the topic. The information on these websites could be true, false or some were in the middle but the consumer still have many resources at their finger tips.
Journalism is a career. People spend many years studying and building up resouces for this career. They have learned about the responsibillities that come with reporting and the importance of resposible journalism and checking your sources. On the other hand the internet is open to any one with a computer. People mislead others online everyday. My point is the media's shift from print to online is a complicated move. While it is convenient to the consumer there is a great oportunity to diminish trust of the media. On the other hand there are legitimate independant reports online. These independant sites often don't have editors cutting stories becasue they are worried about offending people. They write about what they are passionate about.
These changes are huge. We all know that the change is here, but will it lower the quality of our news or raise it? Also could these changes in the media be partially to blame for the peoples loss of trust in the government?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Why do we have czars?
Over the last few months czars have been getting some attention in the media. While the title keep popping up I was unclear on were they come from and why they were around, so I decided to do a little research and share with you. Obama was not the first president to appoint czars, that was actually President Reagan, and every President since has had czars. However, Obama currently has the most czars that one president has had. The major argumant against czars is they do not need to be approved. This means that in theory they are only accountable to the president, and not the people. Main congresswoman Collins says that the "Obama administration's creation of more that a dozen "czar" positions circumvents congressional oversight and hurts both the transparency and accountability in Washington." The article goes on to say that she wants czars to issue two reports per year to the public so that the people know what they have been doing. Here is the link if you want to have a look at the full article. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/23/senator-wants-obama-czars-to-testify/
An important think to remember is czar is a title given to them by the media, it is not in their offical titles.
After some searching I found several list of czars but here is a link to the most comprehensive one. http://me.jeremybuff.com/blog/list-of-obama-czars/ This list not only names the czars, but also gives a breif discription of their positions, another existing office that could be doing the job, and some of the salaries. Only about 1/3 of the salaries are listed but they range from about $90,000 to $200,000.
I think that it is important to look at the people who are forming our policies. These are the people the Presidnet Obama trust and chooses to surround himself with.
I also watched some youtube video's on Obama's czars and Glen Beck has done some shows on "exposing" the czars. There were several quotes from both the President and the czars that are interesting. I will post one of the links, they are kind of long, but you can watch it if you want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZNOfZ18S-I
What do you think of these positions? Do you think that there is a need for the czars? If you have any more information on czars please post them.
An important think to remember is czar is a title given to them by the media, it is not in their offical titles.
After some searching I found several list of czars but here is a link to the most comprehensive one. http://me.jeremybuff.com/blog/list-of-obama-czars/ This list not only names the czars, but also gives a breif discription of their positions, another existing office that could be doing the job, and some of the salaries. Only about 1/3 of the salaries are listed but they range from about $90,000 to $200,000.
I think that it is important to look at the people who are forming our policies. These are the people the Presidnet Obama trust and chooses to surround himself with.
I also watched some youtube video's on Obama's czars and Glen Beck has done some shows on "exposing" the czars. There were several quotes from both the President and the czars that are interesting. I will post one of the links, they are kind of long, but you can watch it if you want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZNOfZ18S-I
What do you think of these positions? Do you think that there is a need for the czars? If you have any more information on czars please post them.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Obama addresses schools:
Yesterday President Obama addressed many of our nations children. He was the third president to do so. President Reagan was first in 1986 followed by George Bush in 1991. Yesterday's speech has spurred a differeance in opinion on if any president should be allowed to address the children while they are at school with or without parental consent. The speech that president Obama gave (http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/) focused on "education and what's expected of all of you this new school year." He goes on to talk about the respnsibility of the student to get their education, and has a brief mention about protecting yourself from the swine flu. After reading all three of the speeches I found that they all had similarities. When Presidnet Reagan addressed (http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/51386d.htmthe) the nation's children the country was coming out of hard economic times (not unlike the present) and he encouraged them to get their education and make good choices for their future. Presidnet Bush's speech(http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public papers.php?id=3450&year=1991&month=10) urged children to stay away from drugs and earn an education.
Some people defend the presidents actions. They believe that holding the office of United States President is an influential office and it is good that he is using it to inspire America's youth. The speech was made avalible online to anyone who wanted to read it, so there is no question as to what was said. The most common reply I read from supporters was way shouldn't the president be allowed to address teh children? Most of the information that I found on the subject were not articles, but rather blogs and comments from other citizens. There were several comments like this one, "...[the] ONLY reason for a parent or school offical to not want kids to hear the President of the U.S. is pure ignorance or racism..." (http://www.news-leader.com/article/20090903/BLOGS10/90903019/Should+students+be+allowed+to+watch+president+Obama+s+address)
On the other hand some parents have been upset that the schools would show this video to their children. They say it sets a president for the President to address their child without them present. One differance between President Obama's speech and the others is it included all studnets from Pre-K to high school seniors. Some think that young children may have questions steming from the speech and the parents have to rely on the teachers to answer those questions. The political views of the teacher may or may not reflect the views of the child's parent. Another argument I read was politics like religion is highly personal. Everyone has an individual view point. This is why they have separated religion from schools. Some people don't think that any government official should have the ability to influence their child without them being present the some way they would not want their child being taught religous beleifs at school. One gentleman made the argument that the president addressing children in schools "..crosses a boundary between the political and social spheres." (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff310.html) On a face book poll about 430,600 people replied, and the split between yes and no was about even.
Supporters of the address in gerneral say that the fears of the speech are an overreaction and uncalled for. While the general reponse of people who disapprove is how is this going to effect my child and how is this going to impact the future standard? Should the President or any political leader be able to address school children without the parent being pressent or approving or are these concerns an overreaction? Please share your thoughts and opinions.
Some people defend the presidents actions. They believe that holding the office of United States President is an influential office and it is good that he is using it to inspire America's youth. The speech was made avalible online to anyone who wanted to read it, so there is no question as to what was said. The most common reply I read from supporters was way shouldn't the president be allowed to address teh children? Most of the information that I found on the subject were not articles, but rather blogs and comments from other citizens. There were several comments like this one, "...[the] ONLY reason for a parent or school offical to not want kids to hear the President of the U.S. is pure ignorance or racism..." (http://www.news-leader.com/article/20090903/BLOGS10/90903019/Should+students+be+allowed+to+watch+president+Obama+s+address)
On the other hand some parents have been upset that the schools would show this video to their children. They say it sets a president for the President to address their child without them present. One differance between President Obama's speech and the others is it included all studnets from Pre-K to high school seniors. Some think that young children may have questions steming from the speech and the parents have to rely on the teachers to answer those questions. The political views of the teacher may or may not reflect the views of the child's parent. Another argument I read was politics like religion is highly personal. Everyone has an individual view point. This is why they have separated religion from schools. Some people don't think that any government official should have the ability to influence their child without them being present the some way they would not want their child being taught religous beleifs at school. One gentleman made the argument that the president addressing children in schools "..crosses a boundary between the political and social spheres." (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff310.html) On a face book poll about 430,600 people replied, and the split between yes and no was about even.
Supporters of the address in gerneral say that the fears of the speech are an overreaction and uncalled for. While the general reponse of people who disapprove is how is this going to effect my child and how is this going to impact the future standard? Should the President or any political leader be able to address school children without the parent being pressent or approving or are these concerns an overreaction? Please share your thoughts and opinions.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Welcome
My name is Samantha, and I started this blog for my Mass Media and Politics class. For a while I wasn't sure what I wanted out of this blog, but I did not want it to be just another item on your endless required reading list. There has been frustration with many mainstream media outlets for their bias or unwillingness to report meaningful news. Bennett says that "Bias is in the eye of the beholder" this is true the frame of your personal beliefs is going to shape how you receive the information any media outlet gives you. However, I think that it is important to be well informed whether or not you agree with the facts. Many people seem to have "given up" on media, and others think that it is pointless, but as an intelligent member of society you should know what is happening around the country. Throughout this semester I am going to highlight topics in the media and try to present a complete view of the issue. I have added a survey to this page so that you can vote on what topics you would like to see. Hopefully by the end of this semester we will see if people want a thematic viewpoint or if they are willing to settle for ongoing emotional drama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
