Source: Newsweek
Date: April 1, 2010
Title: The Tea Party Goes to Hollywood
Author: Jennie Yabroff
Summary: The National Tea Party Unity Convention is to be held in Las Vegas in July, and they are also having an independent film festival at the same convention. The Tea Party has arisen from upset Americans from both sides of the political spectrum who want to see change in government spending and taxes. While they lack a centralized organization they have been able to gain political participation and the Independent film festival at the Convention is sure to gain more supporters. The criteria that is looked for in the film is a conservatist message or something that reflects traditional American values. Yabroff makes a joke about how the winner only recieves $2500 in a contest that requires cinematic genius. She gives examples of other independent films such as Juno and Slumdog Millionaire and how their success is still shrouded in their thematic mystery. Yabroff ends the article by downplaying the attempts of the Tea Party to gain support through cinematic propaganda.
Analysis: Yabroff in the beginning of her article relates the Tea Party's Convention to a recent Facebook Group request she recieved. She finds it curious as to how Walt Disney could have hidden messages in their films, and also how the Tea Party is making attempts to put political agenda in an independent film. She brings up famous films such as Juno, Slumdog Millionaire, and The Blindside can have so many double-meanings that it is nearly impossible for one to make a purely conservative film.
My Take: I think the Tea Party is getting ahead of itself with the inclusion of a film festival in their convention. While the media is the best way to reach the most people, it doesn't quite make sense to attempt and make a film out of their message. Yabroff brings up many good points in her various dissections of famous films. It all depends on the ideologies of the person viewing the film. Juno for example could be seen as a conservative message against abortion, or a liberal message that shows a pregnant teen growing up. Either way I think the Tea Party's film festival will change very little in their movement.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/235759
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Civil Rights/ Civil Liberties
Source: CNN Politics
Date: March 11, 2010
Title: Court clears reciting of Pledge of Allegiance at Western Schools
Author: Bill Mears
Summary: The 9th Circuit of U.S. Court Appeals recently ruled 2-1 in favor of the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in Western District Schools. The suit was brought on by a group of several atheist parents from the west coast led by Michael Newdow. After being dismissed in 2004 by the US Supreme Court, Newdow appealed to the 9th Circuit in 2010 only to be denied once again. Looking forward Newdow plans to appeal once again to the US Supreme Court, but is aware of his slim chances of being heard. The courts ruled that the reciting of the pledge is not a violation of the "Establishment Clause" stated in the first amendment. The Supreme Knight Carl Anderson, of the Knights of Columbus, stated the courts had made the right decision on the basis that the Pledge is not a religious affiliation, but rather a patriotic one.
Analysis: The case that Newdow had brought to the courts was something he thought violated the US constitution by forcing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. However, it is noted that students do not have to participate in the recital if they choose not to. Some parents felt that the social pressures were enough to force religious beliefs onto children, but the courts did not feel the same way. All in all the decision was made based on the choice to recite the Pledge or not, therefore, it was not an infringement of civil rights.
My Take: I think that any court case that involves the Pledge of Allegiance is foolish. I agree that there is social pressure to recite it, but schools do not force it upon students to recite the Pledge. As for the religious aspect, I agree the reference to God may be offensive to some, but should not be taken as an oath towards God in any form. But rather as a patriotic statement meant to unify our nation.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/11/pledge.of.allegiance/index.html?npt=NP1
Date: March 11, 2010
Title: Court clears reciting of Pledge of Allegiance at Western Schools
Author: Bill Mears
Summary: The 9th Circuit of U.S. Court Appeals recently ruled 2-1 in favor of the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in Western District Schools. The suit was brought on by a group of several atheist parents from the west coast led by Michael Newdow. After being dismissed in 2004 by the US Supreme Court, Newdow appealed to the 9th Circuit in 2010 only to be denied once again. Looking forward Newdow plans to appeal once again to the US Supreme Court, but is aware of his slim chances of being heard. The courts ruled that the reciting of the pledge is not a violation of the "Establishment Clause" stated in the first amendment. The Supreme Knight Carl Anderson, of the Knights of Columbus, stated the courts had made the right decision on the basis that the Pledge is not a religious affiliation, but rather a patriotic one.
Analysis: The case that Newdow had brought to the courts was something he thought violated the US constitution by forcing students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. However, it is noted that students do not have to participate in the recital if they choose not to. Some parents felt that the social pressures were enough to force religious beliefs onto children, but the courts did not feel the same way. All in all the decision was made based on the choice to recite the Pledge or not, therefore, it was not an infringement of civil rights.
My Take: I think that any court case that involves the Pledge of Allegiance is foolish. I agree that there is social pressure to recite it, but schools do not force it upon students to recite the Pledge. As for the religious aspect, I agree the reference to God may be offensive to some, but should not be taken as an oath towards God in any form. But rather as a patriotic statement meant to unify our nation.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/11/pledge.of.allegiance/index.html?npt=NP1
U.S. Foreign Policy
Source: Newsweek
Date: April 8, 2010
Title: If Standing At Ground Zero Doesn't Make You A Foreign-Policy Expert, What Does?
Author: Ben Adler
Summary: Ben Adler addresses who has political significance when it comes to foreign policy. Recently Greg Sargent, a political writer, complained about former Mayor Rudi Giuliani appearing on CNN and MSNBC to discuss Obama's foreign policy. Giuliani's standpoint was that by not threatening the nations with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Obama is simply isolating Iran and North Korea more. Sargent argues that with no national security background or basis for dealing with foreign-policy issues, Giuliani has no say whatsoever in the discussion. Adler then questions Sargent's criteria of who exactly does have a say in foreign-policy. He notes how John-McCain's claims that Iran was aiding Al-Qaeda were false, and that by asking for persons who do have political background in foreign-policy don't always make correct statements either. Adler admits to Giuliani's error in his statements of foreign-policy, but also points out that big cable networks aren't really looking for someone with credentials, just someone with a big name.
Analysis: Adler uses Sargent's criticism as means to probe a bigger question, who has authority when it comes to foreign-policy? Sargent does not think Giuliani or anyone without credentials deserves to have a stand on the issue, but Adler states that people even with experience in the field don't necessarily make correct assumptions and statements. Adler understands where Sargent is coming from and expresses his views on how cable TV networks appeal to the most people by using big named people.
My Take: I agree with both Sargent and Adler. Mayor Giuliani doesn't really have any significance when speaking about foreign-policy, but then again it is just an opinion. The execution of foreign-policy I think should be left up to the federal government, however, opinions on how it should be dealth with I believe should be open for discussion by anyone.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/04/08/if-standing-at-ground-zero-doesn-t-make-you-a-foreign-policy-expert-what-does.aspx
Date: April 8, 2010
Title: If Standing At Ground Zero Doesn't Make You A Foreign-Policy Expert, What Does?
Author: Ben Adler
Summary: Ben Adler addresses who has political significance when it comes to foreign policy. Recently Greg Sargent, a political writer, complained about former Mayor Rudi Giuliani appearing on CNN and MSNBC to discuss Obama's foreign policy. Giuliani's standpoint was that by not threatening the nations with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Obama is simply isolating Iran and North Korea more. Sargent argues that with no national security background or basis for dealing with foreign-policy issues, Giuliani has no say whatsoever in the discussion. Adler then questions Sargent's criteria of who exactly does have a say in foreign-policy. He notes how John-McCain's claims that Iran was aiding Al-Qaeda were false, and that by asking for persons who do have political background in foreign-policy don't always make correct statements either. Adler admits to Giuliani's error in his statements of foreign-policy, but also points out that big cable networks aren't really looking for someone with credentials, just someone with a big name.
Analysis: Adler uses Sargent's criticism as means to probe a bigger question, who has authority when it comes to foreign-policy? Sargent does not think Giuliani or anyone without credentials deserves to have a stand on the issue, but Adler states that people even with experience in the field don't necessarily make correct assumptions and statements. Adler understands where Sargent is coming from and expresses his views on how cable TV networks appeal to the most people by using big named people.
My Take: I agree with both Sargent and Adler. Mayor Giuliani doesn't really have any significance when speaking about foreign-policy, but then again it is just an opinion. The execution of foreign-policy I think should be left up to the federal government, however, opinions on how it should be dealth with I believe should be open for discussion by anyone.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/04/08/if-standing-at-ground-zero-doesn-t-make-you-a-foreign-policy-expert-what-does.aspx
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
U.S. Economic Policy
Source: Newsweek
Date: April 2, 2010
Title: Eight Ways Obama Can Sell His Economic Policies
Author: Eleanor Clift
Date: April 2, 2010
Title: Eight Ways Obama Can Sell His Economic Policies
Author: Eleanor Clift
Summary: Clift opens the article by acknowledging the significance of Obama signing the health-care bill, however, quickly shifts the attention to the Economy. She points out that for Obama to keep his popularity the number one issue that needs to be addressed is the Economic Policy. With the unemployment rate rising closer to 10%, Clift notes that it is the most difficult thing to deal with in political communications and if not dealt with correctly voter support drops. Clift mentions how George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton both proved unsuccessful dealing with the public even know the economic situation got better. She also states that the economic numbers are showing Obama losing voter support mainly among initial Obama supporters, unmarried women, and people under 30 years old. Clift then briefly gives eight pieces of advice for Obama to promote his economic policy: inform voters of the new tax cuts, publicize the tax credits for small businesses, bipartisan commision in dealing with the national deficit, convince voters that he has a plan to deal with the economy, deal with the tea-party politicians seriously, keep the Republicans down with numbers, don't make too many promises, and express confidence in the economy. Clift then ends the article by restating how economic policy is the issue that voters focus most on. She also states that if Obama is to remain popular and in office, supporters of his policies must take action.
Analysis: Clift seems to support Obama in a number of ways. One, she acknowledges Obama's health-care bill as monumental and puts him in the "Pantheon of Presidents." Secondly, she gives eight pieces of advice that could help him publicize positively. Clift focuses mainly on the national deficit and the unemployment rate as her examples of the dwindling economy. She also points out historically how past presidents, such as Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr., had failed in their attempts to gain voter support due to their loss of strength in the economy. Clift's advice for Obama is centralized around self-confidence in his policies. As for fiscal and monetary policy itself Clift offers no advice. It seems as though Clift is more of a democrat herself as she gives advice to Obama specifically on how to keep the Republican party down. Clift ends the article by restating the importance of voter support is, and that for Obama to succeed he needs to focus primarily on how to promote his Economic policies.
My Take: Eleanor Clift appears to be an Obama supporter. She not only recognizes the health-care bill signing as monumental, but also as a positive influence on the nation. She also gives Obama advice on how to retain his popularity. I agree with her statements on how to promote the policy better, however, I think more needs to be done with the actual economy rather than just promising a better outlook.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
U.S. Social Policy
Source: Newsweek
Date: March 26, 2010
Title: 'Socialism,' Chicago Style
Author: Howard Fineman
Summary: Recently President Barack Obama signed the new Universal Health Care Bill. The bill is expected to cut the national deficit by almost 1.4 trillion dollars over the next 20 years and expand coverage to over 32 million Americans. The bill is expected to be paid for by the "Medicare Payroll Tax" and "Excise Tax" which target the wealthier portion of our population. In 2014 everyone is expected to have purchased health insurance or face a fine of $695. Howard Fineman in his article addresses the concern that the bill is socialist in nature. Fineman correlates the newly signed health care bill to "Chicago-Style" politics and the Daley machine. He ends the article by explaining how the bill is set up economically, and his personal opinions on how Obama may have saved money in an already deteriorating economy.
Analysis: Howard Fineman supports his argument that the new health care bill is not socialist by pointing directly at the health-care industry itself. It isn't in ruins and isn't in a frenzy unlike much of the Republican party. He states, "If this is socialism, then Warren Buffett is Karl Marx." What he means is that to call the bill socialism, is to call an entrepeneur the cause of it. However, as Fineman states in his article, the bill is built on the foundation of Chicago style politics. This reference is to the political machine run in Cook County, Chicago from the 1930's to 1970's, roughly. The machine had worked so well because of its use of a 'divide and conquer'-type strategy. Fineman explains that this same tactic is used in the health-care bill in the sense that the federal government has made financial deals with: big pharmacies, hospitals, and doctors. Fineman is also quick to note that the bill is by no means going to be inexpensive. In the final paragraph of the article Fineman gives his input on how the economy could take a much smaller hit by simply giving the control of health-care completely over to the Federal government. Fineman makes a witty remark in the final sentence saying, "But that's not the way they do socialism in Chicago." He is referring to president Obama's affiliation with Chicago and making a loose connection between Chicago-style politics and Obama's.
My Take: Personally I agree with what Fineman has to say about the bill. It's not an expression of socialism, but a form of big-business dominating our governments policies. The only thing I can't say I agree with is Fineman's solution to save money on the bill, and how Obama is closely related to the Daley Machine.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/235558
Date: March 26, 2010
Title: 'Socialism,' Chicago Style
Author: Howard Fineman
Summary: Recently President Barack Obama signed the new Universal Health Care Bill. The bill is expected to cut the national deficit by almost 1.4 trillion dollars over the next 20 years and expand coverage to over 32 million Americans. The bill is expected to be paid for by the "Medicare Payroll Tax" and "Excise Tax" which target the wealthier portion of our population. In 2014 everyone is expected to have purchased health insurance or face a fine of $695. Howard Fineman in his article addresses the concern that the bill is socialist in nature. Fineman correlates the newly signed health care bill to "Chicago-Style" politics and the Daley machine. He ends the article by explaining how the bill is set up economically, and his personal opinions on how Obama may have saved money in an already deteriorating economy.
Analysis: Howard Fineman supports his argument that the new health care bill is not socialist by pointing directly at the health-care industry itself. It isn't in ruins and isn't in a frenzy unlike much of the Republican party. He states, "If this is socialism, then Warren Buffett is Karl Marx." What he means is that to call the bill socialism, is to call an entrepeneur the cause of it. However, as Fineman states in his article, the bill is built on the foundation of Chicago style politics. This reference is to the political machine run in Cook County, Chicago from the 1930's to 1970's, roughly. The machine had worked so well because of its use of a 'divide and conquer'-type strategy. Fineman explains that this same tactic is used in the health-care bill in the sense that the federal government has made financial deals with: big pharmacies, hospitals, and doctors. Fineman is also quick to note that the bill is by no means going to be inexpensive. In the final paragraph of the article Fineman gives his input on how the economy could take a much smaller hit by simply giving the control of health-care completely over to the Federal government. Fineman makes a witty remark in the final sentence saying, "But that's not the way they do socialism in Chicago." He is referring to president Obama's affiliation with Chicago and making a loose connection between Chicago-style politics and Obama's.
My Take: Personally I agree with what Fineman has to say about the bill. It's not an expression of socialism, but a form of big-business dominating our governments policies. The only thing I can't say I agree with is Fineman's solution to save money on the bill, and how Obama is closely related to the Daley Machine.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/235558
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)