I was just reading an
article saying that Sen. Barack Obama plans to air a 30 minute political commercial. Too me this seems a bit over the top. What more could this commercial add to the campaign? Personally, I think that overall it will not be all that well received. I think many people will be irritated that their regular programming will be preempted for the spot which might hurt him in a close race. Short commercials are one thing but a whole 1/2 hour may come off like he is flaunting the money he was able to raise for his campaign. I guess he is still concerned that the race is still close and he has to get the message out there.
I will have to say, this election has been the most interesting I have watched in quite sometime and I have learned a lot about the process and even some about the issues this country is facing, but I think I am getting wore out with the campaign messages at this point. Let's get someone elected and get this country back on track.
Labels: elections, media, politics
Palin's Socialism
Kelly sent me something this morning that I thought was worth mentioning on here. Sen. McCain and Gov.
Palin have been pushing the concept that Obama is a socialist lately because of a comment he made while talking to a plumber in Ohio, where he said he wants to increase taxes on businesses that make more than 250,000 a year and spread the wealth to those in the lower income bracket. Now I am not here to make an argument on whether what Obama is suggesting is "socialism," but I do think it is worth pointing out something Gov.
Palin said during an interview with the New Yorker just before she was selected to the Vice President candidacy. The article said the following:
The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.This, to me, doesn't seem much different than what Obama is proposing. Taking money from high earning corporations and redistributing it to the masses. So it surprises me that she is working so hard to
vilify him for what amounts to the same set-up that she has in Alaska. Food for thought.
Labels: elections, politics
Media Bias on Personal Blogs?
There is a "professional" blogger who goes by the pen name of "dooce." She has a blog that many people read. So much so that she actually makes a living off of the amount of traffic that runs through her site. She, at one time, had your typical 9-5 job but was fired because she would post negative blog posts about her workplace.
Anyway, the reason I am posting is that she represents one of the problems I have with our political system as it stands today and how media bias can be used to feed this problem. She makes no secret that she is about as liberal as it comes and lives in a very conservative part of the country. To me, she is no better than some of these conservative crack-pots that rant their own points of view and go on and on about how you have to be a fool not to see it from their perspective. Her most recent post is about a liberal writer who makes fun of undecided voters and how there is no reason for people to be undecided because the choice for president should be very obvious at this point. Personally, I know who I will be voting for, but I think this is an unfair depiction of undecided voters. I actually admire some of these folks because they are not blindly pulling the voting lever for the party they have chosen to align themselves with. To me they just want to make sure they have all the facts (which aren't always easy to find in elections) so they can use that wonderful voting liberty that has been bestowed upon them.
So I pose the question, given the popularity of blogs, especially those that have such a high readership that the creator makes a living off of them, is there an obligation to be more unbiased? There are a lot of blind lever pullers out there, many of whom get their information on candidates and elections from their favorite media source and believe that this source would never be biased or lie to them. So what do you think? Do most readers see these sites as merely entertainment and recognize bias when they see it? Or is there a danger of herd mentality in these situations? I would love to hear your thoughts.
Labels: elections, media, politics
Ever since 9/11 and the beginning of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, there has been a lot of rhetoric about the Muslim faith and a lot of people making correlations between being Muslim and a terrorist. This has taken a center stage in the recent elections as rumors and emails have floated around implying or out-right claiming that Barack Obama is a closet Muslim and supports terrorists. First of all, I find it small minded to even draw this sort of correlation and many of the people I see do it are supposed upstanding Christians. I guess it is all too easy to forget about the extreme elements of our own faith when we want to point to someone
else's beliefs and lump them all in with a minority of attention
getter's. I could go on and on about the
hypocrisy of many Christians and how somewhere down the line they forgot the message of Christ as being one of Love and
Tolerance, but that will have to be another blog post. Instead I wanted to point out an
article I came across on CNN that highlights how many Muslim-Americans have been viewing the recent elections. It highlights both Democratic and Republican backing Muslims and how they are
disappointed with how the Muslim faith has been reduced to a mere talking point and the bulk of those points seem to be only concerned with lumping their faith with terrorism. The people highlighted are Americans too with many of the same concerns about national security, education, health care, etc that everyone else has.
It talks about how one Muslim-American received an email (I received it too)
falsely stating that Obama was
Muslim and was an attempt to tie him to terrorism to swing support to his opponent John McCain. The woman was quoted as saying:
"We're America, the melting pot, the land of diversity, and that Americans would be buying into that psychology [of the e-mails] was upsetting," said the New Jersey-born Muslim, whose parents are from India. "The e-mail offended my American ideals."
So when did America no longer become the melting pot, that we were taught in history class? The diversity that makes up this country is the very reason we have been so successful both socially but economically as well. I know there are some arguments out there that this is supposed to be a "Christian" country and our laws should be Christian laws. If this were the case then we would be in trouble, because the very nature of the belief breeds segregation and intolerance to other peoples' beliefs. This country was founded on the basis of freedom of religion and to take a singular view would destroy the Democracy that the rest of the world looks to us to uphold.
With this being said I have seen a lot of progress with our citizens to tackle this topic and really take stock of what our country has become and what it could be. And by forcing people to look at something that they have only whispered about in their own living rooms. You will see some who are not comfortable with this level of openness and exploration and will not only fear it themselves but will work to make others fear it as well. Maybe its an uncomfortable process we will have to go through as a nation to evolve and grow to be the world leader that others want the US to be and if so, then so be it. There are many that feel we should close off our borders to the world and just worry about ourselves, and doing so would just create more problems. We may have our differences around the world but that is only because we have lost our way as an example of what a successful democracy can be, and the rest of the world wants us to step back up and be a leader that all can admire. Sometimes that takes sacrifice and taking risks and being open when its easier and more comfortable to retreat into our own borders. The world isn't going away and the sooner our citizens realize that the easier it will be to deal with the problems that are affecting us around the world, not just militarily but most importantly diplomatically. Building strong relationships will serve us better than forcing people to our point of view. We need to be willing to work hand-in-hand with our neighbors of differing faiths to tackle the problems of the world and I truly believe that true American values and the staples our great country was founded on has positioned us to take a lead role to accomplish this. And to me this is what being patriotic means. We can be that shining city on a hill that President Reagan envisioned, but we can't do through fear, force, intollerance, suspension of civil liberties, and close mindedness.
Labels: elections, politics, religion
I can't say that I saw John McCain's appearance on Late Night with David Letterman, but I read an
article through Yahoo! News about it this morning. So take the rest of this with a grain of salt because I am basing my take on this through a second hand account, but I think this is a good example of why we, as voters, need to be aware of media biases. The article describes how Letterman hammers on McCain regarding comments he has made during his campaign and repeatedly questions Sarah
Palin's qualifications to be running a country. Now, to be clear, I have absolutely no problem with interviewers asking these types of tough questions of our potential candidates, but I do question whether this same sort of questioning would have occurred with Sen. Obama. David Letterman reaches nearly 4 million viewers a night and in some ways has a responsibility to keep things even handed between the candidates. Just like anyone, he has his own preference for a candidate, but I still think he and other media outlets need to understand the responsibility they hold to remain somewhat unbiased. Especially, when the media plays such and influential role in how we view each of these candidates.
I thought most of the questions he asked McCain were fair, but the level to which he seemed to have hounded Sen. McCain seemed out of balance with other interviews he has done in the past. And I wonder if it was coincidental that he had Keith
Oberman, one of the biggest critics of the G.O.P and John McCain on the set that night too. If this was more done for entertainment, which is what the Letterman show is really for, then great and I still think individuals need to take responsibility and make sure they do their own digging on the candidates rather than taking the word of a David Letterman, Rush Limbaugh, Keith
Oberman, etc. Personally, I am a big fan of the Daily Show and
Cobert Report, but I also understand that these are satirical shows and at the end of the day I need to do my own research and decide for myself. Just some food for thought.
Labels: elections, entertainment, politics
I found
this quick quiz on Yahoo! News and thought it was kind of interesting. Its fun, quick and can be eye opening regarding the facts and fiction of what each candidate is claiming. I scored a 5 out of 10 the first time around. How did you do, leave a post with your score if you aren't too embarrassed to that is! :) You can find the quiz at this
link.
Labels: elections, Fun, politics
Thought I would take a quick second and leave access to a fact check analysis done on claims by both candidates in last night's debate. Once again both, the truth was distorted, or in some cases extremely
over exaggerated, which came off somewhat like fear mongering. It was an interesting debate and the last we will see before the elections. As always, I have tempered what I learned from the candidates by supplementing what was said by doing homework through fact check groups. I encourage you to do the same. It really opens your eyes. It did for me. For many of the stances and plans I thought I understood for each candidate, the fact checks really help clear things up and show the reality of what they want to accomplish and how. For more information check out this article:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_3.htmlLabels: debate, elections, politics
I just want to take a moment to thank Sen. John McCain. As I pointed out in my last post, I think too much of American elections get bogged down in mud slinging and name calling that is emotionally charged and has no real basis in fact, other than people just want something to hate and don't want to take the time to educate themselves on the real issues. I have seen John McCain repeatedly rise above this. He has had many opportunities and has been pushed by many Republican leaders, including his own running mate, to take the low road and encourage a lot of false information about Sen. Barack Obama. He to me, has represented what American politics should be about. Integrity and keeping it about the issues. I do not know who will win this election, but I will say this, I am very proud of the two candidates we have running for President today. They both have shown much more integrity than a our last few Presidential candidates and I can only hope that we have more leaders like this in our country's future. It would be a shame if the winner of this campaign couldn't find a way to work the runner up into a prominent role, but my guess is that pride will keep that from happening. So my hat is off to you Mr. McCain for standing up to the
slimy tactics that are being pushed at you. I hope you always keep that stance throughout these elections. Even if it seems tempting to fall into this path when the polls are against you.
Here is an article that somewhat illustrates what I am talking about.
Labels: elections, politics
Rumors, Propoganda, and Fear
This is really the first time that I have really dove into the Presidential Elections to this depth. In past elections, I took more of a high-level approach, relying mainly on media coverage to help me make my decision. I really didn't watch the debates, nor did I do much digging on my own to see what the candidates stood for or their plan. Instead, I got caught up in all the emotional stuff that goes along with the election and voted more based on that very emotion rather than on a sound, well thought out decision. Over the next 8 years, and as the emotion of the election wore off, I began to see more and more the information that was in front of me all along, that I either ignored or was just to lazy to dig for. I became very
disappointed in myself and vowed to educate myself the next time the elections rolled around. While watching this election cycle unfold, through the primaries and now through the actual election, I have become more and more disturbed with how many people use ignorance, fear and
propaganda to push one candidate over another. For example, there has been a lot of
propaganda floating around that Obama is a
Muslim, hates America, refuses to put his hand over his heart for the pledge of allegiance, and was swore into office over a Koran. I write this after receiving one of many emails urging me to read Barack
Obama's books before voting for him. The email goes on to pull specific excerpts from each book that indicate his supposed hate of white Americans and his support of Muslims (as if supporting Muslims is a bad thing).
I put very little stock in "political"
propaganda that is passed around the email circuit. It is too hard to prove that the information is legit and typically only picks and chooses the information that supports one persons point of view without telling the whole story. On a personal note I doubt very much that Obama has a black/
Muslim agenda and only wants to be president to put whites/
Christians down. Its disappointing to me that this is the sort of thing that people latch on to during an election when there are real and more important issues to be concerned with such as the economy,
health care, national security, etc.
Let's face it, each of the excerpts from the book were carefully selected and taken out of context and anyone who reads these books with an open mind would understand that. Even John McCain has refuted the lies and
mistruths that have been going around about Obama. It is disturbing to me that so many people would believe an email sent to them rather than doing their own homework and get to know each candidate. It says a lot that America has come so far that we can have an African American candidate for president, but its obvious to me that we still have a long way to go when so many people would rather believe random rumors than finding the facts themselves. Its been proven time and again that Obama is American, is a Christian and does own his own bible and goes to church, but all it takes is one yahoo with an email account to spread rumors that too many people want to believe.
I always felt that I was raised to think for myself and not judge someone because they are different than me. I have heard people from small town America (the joe 6-packs) I felt I learned these great morals from refer to Obama as
Osama, as if the poor guy is no different than a mass murdering terrorist! Now I know some comments are said in jest, but even as a joke, it just perpetuates ignorance and hate.
Another point I would like to make is what if Obama was Muslim, which he isn't. Have we become so hateful as a country and as Christians that we
condemn all people of another faith as terrorists? Personally, I plan to vote for the candidate that I think has the best shot to work with the rest of our elected officials to clean up the mess that this country finds itself in, not based on what religion they choose to follow or what color their skin is. I hope to have a better idea after tonight's debate and the fact checking that I try to do after the debate to make sure the candidates were being completely honest.
Its one thing to not want to vote for someone because you don't like their plan for fixing
health care or the economy, but when it resorts to fear
mongering and elderly women standing up at a McCain rally saying she doesn't trust Obama because he is an Arab, it makes me sad that our citizens still operate on this same sort of hate rationale, rather than just finding the facts for themselves and making a well
thought out and educated decision.
Just my thoughts
Labels: elections, politics, racism
Debates: Round 2 and Fact-Checks
Last night was the 2nd of 3 rounds of debates that the Presidential hopefuls participated in. This debate had more of a "town-hall" style where most of the questions came from undecided voters in the audience and on-line. I really enjoyed this format. It forced the candidates to interact with real people, and not just those who obviously already support one candidate or the other. These are people that have some real good questions and are taking their time to make a well throughout decision and not just blindly going off of what the media or the candidates are telling them. This format also forced the candidates to be, for the most part, civil with each other, rather than some of the childish attacks that typically happen during an election season. I will be honest, I only saw the second half of the debate because I was out buying much needed groceries and doing my part to pump money into the economy. But I did TIVO the whole thing and hope to watch the the rest tonight. I though that Sen. McCain did a slightly better job in the second half of the debate in fielding the questions. He seemed to be more direct and concise with his answers. Though both rarely answered the exact question that was asked of them. At least in my opinion. At any rate, I did watch some of the analysis after the debate that included a panel of undecided voters. Again, I loved this set-up. The panel had some great insight and pointed out strengths and weakness they saw in each candidate without really taking a side. Once again both candidates, distorted or stretched the reality of their opponents background/stance and encourage those reading this to check out the fact check resources. The two I have looked through so far include
this Associated Press write-up on Yahoo! News and a sight where some the write-ups info came from called
factcheck.org. Check-em out and if you have other sources you use, please leave a comment with what they are. I would love to look through them. On a related note, a friend of mine sent me a site the other day called
http://www.votegopher.com/. Its is a nice little site that summarizes each candidates stance on many of the major issues. Check it out if you get the chance.
Ok, so I haven't posted on here in a long time, and I hope to get back into it and get my creative writing skills flowing since my new job requires a large amount of writing. At any rate, I wanted to put this post out here for all of those interested in the upcoming elections. I attempt to take no side here. After each debate there are groups that conduct fact checks on what each candidate said during the debates and attempts to shed light on inaccuracies or in some cases blatant lies. I found
this article through the associated press on Yahoo! News today. It goes point by point through both Gov. Sarah
Palin's and Sen. Joe
Biden's claims made during the debate. You will see that both candidates made false claims or at the very least bent the truth. This is why I have been stressing to people for so long that you have to do your own homework during elections season. I feel that too many people just blindly listen to what either the media or their candidate tells them. More times than not there is more misinformation out there than actual clear truth. I encourage any one who reads this to dig for yourself before making that important decision on November 4. Look into the candidates past records, see what decisions they have made in the past and try to understand why they made them. Don't get your information solely from the media, talk show hosts, or
celebrities. Everyone has their own personal stake in this process and they are only going to try to get you to vote the way they want you too. You can't be an informed voter unless you get off your butt and do your own unbiased research. You may find that it will open your eyes! I am not advocating the AP or Yahoo! News as a single source of information. I am just using this article as one example of why each individual needs to do their own homework. Do the homework and get out and vote!
Labels: debate, elections, facts, politics, research
