Media and Music

I wanted to discuss, briefly, the presence of politics in music. Music is certainly a form of media and has similar, profound effects on citizens. Lets look at the Beatles. John Lennon was well-known for his anti-war and pro-love sentiment. People flocked from all over the world traveled to hear him play music and preach his political philosophy. Similarly, Bob Dylan had a profound effect. Not only was he at the forefront of country music AND paved the way for modern country music, his lyrics contained the essence of the country movement: an anti-war and anti-establishment philosophy. Here's a song that will do the talking for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvr72uTd7kc

Let's talk about the legend of Obama

How about it? You know, a lot of people would say that Obama's lasting impressions are going to be Obamacare and the website failure. Apparently, he may have us think differently. Iran is well-known to be the counter of American politics and doesn't like to listen to us. They continue to build nuclear sites with enriched uranium despite the cries from the U.N. Plus, it doesn't help when you've said you would rather Israel not exist as a state (we'll come back to this). So, this deal that Obama has concocted (or conjured depending on your feelings about his presidency) supposedly will help protect Israel and prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons. However, this will only come to fruition due to the billions of dollars given in sanction relief.

Are we really giving Iran more money? Yes, and Obama will do so by bypassing Congress altogether. Now, it would seem this is a terrible move; if it does indeed work, Obama will be known for some peace in the Middle East. If it doesn't, it will blow right up in his face. He still has 3 more years to go, so its not like this was a short term saving face strategy. No, he's in it for the long term. And how are the media reacting? They're putting their own spin on this whole deal. The CNN article I've provided began the article with his plummeting approval ratings (the lowest of his career) and the Obamacare debacle. It's as if these are the only things he's done. While they are certainly the most publicized and well-know, that is only due to the media's attention. The article already sets him up for failure with the first paragraph and the tone of the rest of the article. Unfortunately, the article continues rather unbiased so the first paragraph really creates a negative atmosphere. I, for one, would like to see the tone of the article reflect the beginning. If the reporter meant for the article to sound hopeful, it certainly didn't. If the reporter meant for it to sound despairing, then that wasn't too great of a job either. All in all, it's too early to call this measure impotent. I can only hope this will bring more agreeable relations between Iran and the U.S. We certainly don't need another Iraq war.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/24/politics/iran-obama-legacy/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+Politics%29

Insinuation

Article: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/13/officials-say-4-marines-killed-in-training-accident-at-camp-pendleton/


A quick summary, four marines were killed at Camp Pendleton during unexploded ordinance removal. These things happen, and they are unfortunate. It's always a tragedy when soldiers die, especially in the confines and the supposed 'safety' of a military base. The details have not been released, but there is obvious insinuation in the article. We can see by their choice of words that they are already conjuring conspiracies. They present the material in a very suspicious manner, emphasizing the fact that the base has not released any information. The reporter mentions another accident where 7 soldiers were killed in a mortar accident, the cause was ultimately ruled as human error. Was the recent tragedy human error? No one knows yet, but this reporter seems to think he/she has the answers.

I'm Sorry

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/politics/2013/11/08/when-presidents-apologize.cnn.html

In the above video, you will find a short segment on presidential apologies. It is interesting how the website blunder is being compared to Clinton's infidelity and the Watergate scandal. I can't say it isn't misleading of CNN to follow Obama's apology with these very different regrets. Nixon's infamous scandal is much more heinous than the Obamacare website and Americans being dropped from their insurance. It is a fixable problem whereas Nixon's was not, save for him quitting. Clinton's was an issue of character where he cheated on his wife, hardly comparable.

Regrets and politics

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/02/politics/obama-read-my-lips-moment/index.html?hpt=po_c1


This article, while light-hearted, highlights some of the biggest presidential regrets in the past. Obama, of course for relevancy sake, earns the No. 1 spot with his quote that Americans can retain their current health insurance. This issue with this statement, as said in the article, is that the Affordable Healthcare act will require those who did not choose comprehensive plans to now purchase them. The problem with a statement such as this and others ("But as open enrollment began this month for the fewer than 20% of Americans Obamacare was designed to help, it became clear there is a subset of people who like their health plans and will in fact lose their health plans.") is they need to be substantiated. I am not contesting that statement as a whole, I'm well aware of the major points in Obamacare. Yet, it aids in objective journalism to have some sort of citation. This a misleading representation and calls into question the ethos of a writer who failed to provide sources for his or her facts. 

But enough brass tax. The article goes on to explore 3 other presidents: George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. The Clinton quote is obvious - it concerns his affair with Monica Lewinsky. I'm a little taken aback by the apparent bashing of the Bush men. George W. was not known for his eloquence in speech, yet it was a bit unfair of the writer to include 3 of the 6 regrets under this president. Readers are clearly getting a picture of G.W. Bush that is misrepresented due to his political statements. The truth is, many of the Bush administration blunders can be pointed to Congress or his cabinet, not necessarily the man himself. However, I do think the article is mostly comedic and not meant to be taken under political influence. But, as I posted last week, if people can be swayed by a Youtube video about Obama being the anti-christ, journalists have to be more cognizant about what they put on the web.

Obama is the devil!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns0xDdQ43aQ

Just a little video I found with some not so hard searching. It's amazing to see what people will put on the internet with a simple video editing program and a radical view. I can only hope this video was tongue in cheek, but I highly doubt it with the number of spelling and grammar mistakes - plus the misused bible verses. The proof, of course, offers very little evidence considering ANY political figure can be inserted into the same video and 'proved' to be the anti-christ.

What bothers me is the over 4 million views. Most were probably sent to this video as a joke, but it doesn't stop many of those people from being persuaded by the terrible rhetoric. I just hope people can see the sensationalism in stories like this.

Affordable Healthcare Act Website in Turmoil

Its no secret that Obamacare has it's flaws. Its also no secret, in more recent news, that the website has "glitches." Howard Kurtz notes these problems in his article on Foxnews.com. Kurtz points out that the "glitches" Obama and others are mentioning are actually huge problems. Namely, there are price calculations going wrong which can mislead people on their insurance plan choices. I'm not quite sure if this is meant to be an opinion piece as its unclear on the link I took to the page. I DO know that Kurtz's voracity certainly paints it this way. He clearly has a bone to pick with Obamacare and has no shame about showing it. It's the blurred line between opinion and journalism that makes me wary of the "facts" in his article. I do agree that the problems with the website are underestimated and not covered well. I do not agree with his presentation of this fact. He has plenty of sources through out the article that support his main idea, just not enough pose to do so himself. People must be wary of journalism that appears as fact but muddies itself with harsh opinions and bias.

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/21/obamacare-meltdown-even-media-liberals-are-appalled/

Holding the off button on Congress

Let's talk about the government shutdown. The Republicans and Democrats are at a stand still and the media can only speculate when it will end. Looking at the major news outlets: CNN, Fox News, ABC News, and NBC News to name a few, we can see a few discrepancies. The major stories today are concerning either the government shutdown and debt ceiling or the controversial decision to deny death benefits to the families of 4 soldiers. The latter involves the former so we'll just put them together. It is no surprise that the biggest news concerns the government shutdown and unilaterally media outlets are firing shots at Congress. Most articles are how the debt ceiling will affect citizens, members of Congress are still receiving pay while hundreds of thousands of others are furloughed, and current efforts by Obama to speak to Boehner. Overall, the position is not favorable for the government; this isn't surprising considering only 43% of U.S. citizens approve of Obama. The shutdown essentially fed the media who is ever hungry. It gave them countless stories about the closing of several federal programs and most notably the closing of national parks. NPR reported a story where a man, who waited 18 years for a permit to raft in the Grand Canyon, cannot do so because of the government shutdown.

Should he be a criminal?

In this Vice article, the writer tells us of a story that will make readers cringe. Omar Khadr, an unassuming young man from Canada, was arrested in Afghanistan nearly 11 years ago under the assumption he killed an American solider with a grenade. The arrest was never substantiated until Omar confessed after years in Guantanamo Bay under abhorrent conditions. The circumstances leading to this confession were shaky, at best. He was offered the chance to transfer his prison time to Canada if he confessed to the crime. One can see how terrible this situation is and why there are so many protests to release this man.

While I will not comment on whether or not he's guilty, you can see how this situation reeks of forced confession and false arrest. It's easy for soliders, in the heat of the moment and especially after their comrade just died, to try and bring justice to man who wronged them. This time, justice was not brought. It shows us the possibility that there are many more innocent people in Guantanamo Bay; they are being tortured to confess to crimes they did not commit. While I agree that terrorists who kill Americans should be locked away, situations like Omar's are ridiculous. If we want the world to side with us, especially in the countries that we occupy during conflicts, we need to conduct ourselves better overseas. If not, we only fuel the groups out to destroy us and turn people against us.

Link to article: http://www.vice.com/read/omar-khadr-war-criminal-child-soldier-or-neither

Republicans to withdraw from defunding

Based on this article and a few others, we can see the overwhelming sense that the Republicans are trying to defund Obamacare. This tactic attempts take funding from the Affordable Healthcare Act and gut some of the legislation. This writer, Julie Roginsky, is calling for the Republicans in congress to stop these actions. While I don't agree with the whole disagreeing with Obamacare, Roginsky is right. Republicans need to put their eggs in other baskets. Trying to fight the corner-stone of Obama's platform is just time wasted. 

The Republicans are still recovering from their loss last year and putting all their time into Mitt Romney (not a terrible candidate, but they could have done better). Now, the Democrats control a majority of the Senate which makes it even harder for the Republicans to have an effective presence in Congress. But spending their energy on the monolithic legislation that is Obamacare, is simply bad politics.  

Introduction

Hi, everyone.

I'm not here to sway people one direction or another; nor do I want to feed false information. As a disclaimer: if I appear to be providing information that cannot be backed up or opinions presented as fact, please call me out. There's nothing worse in politics today than lying or misuse of information, and I want to hold myself to that same standard. I am here to provide counter evidence for the media's elaborate paintings. They have a huge palate to choose from and create wonderful, exemplary portraits of politicians and legislation. The problem with these paintings is they are not realism, they are abstract. The biggest clue is the continual rant against "socialist" Obama. While he is certainly liberal and legislation like Obamacare are more socialist, he is comparable to policies of the preceding president: George W. Bush. Bush had very comparable military expenditures and introduced legislation like "No Child Left Behind" which instituted more government standards on schools. 

Now, I haven't done enough individual research (yet) to really make assertions about either president; my point is that we, as citizens, must become skeptical. Not only should we be skeptical to the institutions that oppose us, but also skeptical to our own identities. 
                 "Do not allow yourselves to be deceived: Great Minds are Skeptical[...]There                    is nothing more necessary than truth, and in comparison with it everything                        else has only secondary value.This absolute will to truth: what is it? Is it the                      will to not allow ourselves to be deceived? Is it the will not to deceive?[...]                      One does not want to be deceived, under the supposition that it is injurious,                    dangerous, or fatal to be deceived."
This quote by Friedrich Nietzsche represents what I am trying to convey. In a society where we regard truth so highly, we have become burdened by acceptance. We no longer challenge each other on the level of honesty. Instead, out challenging has become more ethological (e.g. "Who are YOU to make that claim?). The next time someone makes a point or claim, lets all vow to take some time researching that point. I'm not talking about spending countless hours on wikipedia or the library trying to find why they're wrong. Instead, try find why they're right. If you can't, then the claim is unsubstantiated (you can usually make educated guesses as to which claims are unsubstantiated), or you can prove their point and learn something.