Showing posts with label National. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National. Show all posts

Friday, October 30, 2009

Lou Dobbs Home Shot At

Lou Dobbs received threatening phone calls and had shots fired at his home in Jersey [http://bit.ly/1EO4IW]



I wonder if this had anything to do with it:



"William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC), said it's very likely Dobbs' outspokenness on illegal immigration led to the shooting."

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Hate Crime Prevention Act -- Passed & SIGNED



This afternoon, President Obama signed the Hate Crime Prevention Act, "critical legislation that strengthens existing U.S. laws by extending federal hate crime protection in cases where the victim was targeted because of their sexual orientation, gender, disability, or gender identity." [Read more: http://bit.ly/1nKjoo]

--
a.Rias
www.poli-babble.blogspot.com

Monday, October 26, 2009

Obama Administration Takes Aim at Executive Pay

The Obama administration is making attempts to reign in on Wall St, to penalize those companies who have not given back their share of bailout money. Where are they starting? Executive pay.



Too much government involvement? You tell me.

Pro: Wall St. got the money in order to fix the problems, but now they are just going back to business as usual, continuing to take risky moves. GIVE IT BACK.

Con: There were no stipulations placed upon the funds prior to them being given out that demands that the recipients had to give it back. This is another example of government meddling in business.

What do you think?

--
a.Rias
www.poli-babble.blogspot.com

Sunday, October 25, 2009

The Power of Nightmares

"In the past, politicians promised to make a better world. They had different ways of achieving this, but their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered their people. Those dreams failed and today people have lost faith in ideologies ... But now, they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians promise to protect us, from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from dangers that we cannot see and do not understand..."

So I've just spent the past few hours watching a documentary called "The Power of Nightmares" produced by BBC from a few years ago.

The premise of the doc. is to develop understanding of fantastical political promises told in order to gain momentum and power for ideological shifts in national policy. In this film, "nightmares" are referred to political promises of protection from the most feared aspects of life, even if there is no evidence to support the likelihood of those fears coming true. Furthermore, the maintenance of political (ideological) power is established through the non-occurrence of "terror" acts being tauted as proof of promised protection.

The film compares the growth of extreme Islamic and extreme American/British political ideologies and how they have been allowed to emerge and grow to shape both foreign and domestic policy today. This is illustrated through an increasing paranoia that began to thrive after the 9/11 attacks. This emergence is reported in the film to be a reaction to the social and political search for purpose and cause within the nation. The doc. specifically reports on the formation of American, British (neo-Conservatism) and Islamic social and political extremism based off of their perceived failures of liberal "progress".

It also explores the evolution of our policy-making atmosphere due to the "War on Terror" and political extremism. The doc. largely attempts to dispel the myth that is "Al-Qaeda" and the legitimacy of the idea of highly specialized and organized terror networks--also bringing into question the reasoning behind grand national spending and military presence. It questions the efforts of the CIA and intelligence community, shortcutting traditional empirical methods of drawing conclusions based on fact, by first coming to conclusions and then searching for evidence to prove those unsubstantiated conclusions.

...and it covers much more.

Toward the end, a closing message/perspective was shared, and I found it notable and actually a spark to other types of social and political conversations that can be had:

"A society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the agenda. Half of the 20Th century was dominated between a conflict between a free market right and a socialist left. Even though both of those outlooks had their limitations and their problems, at least they believed in something. Whereas what we are seeing now, is a society that believes in nothing. And a society that believes in nothing is particularly frightened by a society that believes in anything. And therefore, we label those people as fundamentalists or fanatics, and they have much greater purchase in turns of the fear that they instill in society than they truly deserve. But that is a measure of how much we have become isolated and itemized rather than their inherent strength."

Conversation topics/questions that came to mind based on the doc follow:
1) In what ways have "fear" and "paranoia" affected the way that we treat one another within this country?

-Is this a new phenomenon or are these the same ideas that are prevalent in arguments against some of our nation's largest internal struggles? Issues such as:

-The abolition of slavery [argument against: blacks are intellectually subordinate and unable to function in civil society], racial civil rights [minorities are will change the country and will run it to the ground]

-Women's suffrage [argument against: women's power will become greater and greater and will cause the country to lose focus on important issues]

-Gay rights [argument against: gay marriage will reduce the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and will infect children with gayness]

-The growing prominence of multiculturalism within the nation [argument against: Spanish is going to become our national language, there will be too many religions, and the country will change for the worse, and will lose our standing in the world]

-Health Care Reform [arguments against: the government is getting too large, competition is reduced because the government will be taking over the health care industry, old people are going to die, etc.]

-Legalizing medical marijuana [arguments against: legalizing medical marijuana will lead us down a slippery slope of drug use and will therefore encourage more widespread use, rotting the fabric of our society]

2) The social apathy displayed by the public prior to the most recent presidential campaign was a big discussion topic on college campuses and elsewhere for years. The argument was often made that during the eras of MLK, Malcolm X, Black Panthers, Young Lords, etc., people had things to believe in and fight for in this country. Since then "leadership" similar to that era has been few and far in between. Does the statement quoted earlier ["what we are seeing now, is a society that believes in nothing. And a society that believes in nothing is particularly frightened by a society that believes in anything"] describe the reason why revolutionary leadership has become a rarity--because we are a society that no longer believes in anything?

This documentary can spark all kinds of other social and political questions, these were just a few that are ricocheting around my head at the moment.

The doc. has three parts/volumes, each about an hour and a half long. To anyone who decides to check this documentary out on YouTube, pay special attention to the part/volume numbers so that you don't jump back and forth between parts. I definitely recommend checking it out. Once you watch one part, you'll want to watch the other parts. It offers great perspective on our social and political climate in a way that we can all understand.


Check it out:


The Power of Nightmares
[ link: http://bit.ly/ 4qBcYA ]


Closing monologue: Interesting statement about the relevance of politicians...

"This story began 30 years ago, as the dream that politics can bring a better world began to fall apart. Out of that collapse came two groups: the Islamists and the Neo-Conservatives. Looking back, we can now see that these two groups were the last political idealists, who in an age of growing disillusion tried to reassert the inspirational power of political visions that would give means to people's lives. But both have failed in their attempts to transform the world. And instead, together, they have created today's strange fantasy of fear, which politicians have seized on. Because in an age where all of the grand ideas have lost credibility, the fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power.

But the fear will not last. And just as the dreams that politicians once promised turned out to be illusions, so too will the nightmares. And then our politicians will have to face the fact that they don't have the visions, either good or bad, to offer us any longer."

This doc. is just full of other areas to discuss...

--
a.Rias
www.poli-babble.blogspot.com

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Has the White House "OutFoxed" FOX News?



Soooo...

You may or may not have heard by now about the very pronounced stand that the White House has taken in opposition of the FOX News network. In the world of politics and political media/information distribution, this is pretty big. It's not common that a President and his Administration put the cross hairs on and blast a network; let alone a news network.

David Axelrod, Senior Advisor to President Obama, on ABC's "This Week" says that what Fox News reports "is really not news" and that "they push a point of view".

White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel echoed similar comments on CNN's "State of the Union". "I suppose the way to look at it and the way … the president looks at it, we look at it is: It’s not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."

Their comments were made to clarify statements made by White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, on CNN's "State of the Union", where she claims that Fox News acts as "the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party". She goes on to comment that "when [President Obama] goes on FOX, he understands he's not going on it as a news network at this point, he's going on to debate the opposition".

Is the President and his Administration tight-rope walking a fine line between 1) outing a potentially falsely represented "news network"and 2) attempting to silence a dissenting point of view. The sides of these lines are distinctly different things.

This is not the first time that Obama or his administration has made his opinions on Fox News network known [see here in April].

In early September, Robert Gibbs contends that Fox News reduces its new coverage to that of sensationalized reality television here.

[Having issues embedding the videos, will try again later.]

And there are others, I just really didn't want to go scour through YouTube clips tonight (forgive me!).

But outing a misnomered "news network" is a good thing; right? Exposing a fake, a phony amongst the bunch. IF Fox News is a "poser" entertainment network, then it should be outed and understood as such.

HOWEVER...

This push by the White House teeters above the line into something potentially dangerous. In a Twitter conversation [a twittersation???], a friend of mine made a good point. He pointed out the importance of establishing the difference between attacking a network specifically and attacking a media bias. Point taken.

I'm not a fan of Fox by any stretch of the imagination, but it even makes ME uncomfortable...

I must admit. I mean, even before watching "OutFoxed" a number of years ago, the tactics and methods used by the Fox News network were offensive to me and I chose not to take the network seriously. But that was my decision to do that because of the way that I felt about the network. Honestly, I even turn away from MSNBC from time to time when they get a little too lefty.

Why does this move by the White House rub me the wrong way? Well because of the way that it can be spun. As a former martial artists who competed internationally for a number of years, I understand battle. When you initiate an attack, if you want to score, you must commit to it. But when you attack, don't leave yourself exposed! So although I happen to agree with the stance of the White House on this particular network, I don't completely agree with the tactics being used here. The reason?

This opens up the White House to a right hook [pun intended].

Dependent upon perspective, the White House is either exposing a fraudulent organization guilty of passing biased information off as "fair and balanced" when it is truly representing a political perspective OR, the White House is "shunning dissent". The White House is not turning this same attention toward MSNBC, who leans hard to the left in my perspective. MSNBC happens to side with the President a lot of the time. So because the White House isn't pointing out a network on both ends of the spectrum, just FOX, the POTUS (President of the United States) might be exposing a rib here.

...as if FOX and other dissenting POVs don't have a target on him. The "shunning dissent" side of the argument can be made along side claims of the President trying to silence freedom of speech and gain control over dissenting points of view, taking away citizen choice. That's the punch. That kind of argument will fall right in line with the Health Care scare movement and the Obama Communism/Socialism claims. That is the rib.

I would venture off to say that this is the slippery slope side of the argument (see logic here). But still, it should be considered. Why? Well, because that is a tactic widely used by the loudest voices at either extreme of the political wings' . They venture down the slipperiest of slopes in order to catch on to something, scare and gain followers (not claiming that FOX or MSNBC does that, well...maybe FOX *wink*), and connect it by any means to a broader issue "infringing upon the rights of American citizens".

Before combating an enemy, you have to know what their reaction to your first attack will be, so that you have the second and third waiting on deck, ready to go. Pick up The Art of War by SunTzu (or read it here). I hope that the President isn't exposing his rib here.


The ribs (especially the floating rib) can break due to trauma, which is painful enough--or so I've heard. But it can also puncture a lung, forcing the air out of one. This increases dependence upon the other lung, still in tact. Although very treatable and not a fatal wound (if medical attention is sought quickly), it can cause a slippery slope of other physiological problems. See where I'm going with this? I hope so...

All in all, I would hope the President and his White House know what they are doing (just like I was hoping President G. W. Bush knew what he was doing every time he decided to speak).

As Maureen Dowd put it in a NY Times op-ed discussing the President's unwillingness to make enemies, "the president should remember ... that when you’re cooking up a more perfect Union, sometimes you’ve got to break some eggs."

I prefer mine scrambled, with black pepper, chopped green peppers and tomatoes, please.

Over and out.
--
a.Rias

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Jim Cramer says Obama got the Bail Out Right

What's next in this economic stimulus effort?

A real stimulus: "Replace the smell of decay with the smell of construction."



Does Obama deserve any credit for stabilizing the economy? Does he even want to take credit for it yet?

I say maybe not. There is still no job creation. So although a great depression was avoided, this is not the time to sit back. Now that we've leveled off, let's build!

What do you think?

--
a.Rias
http://poli-babble.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

FOX News' Shep Smith Supporting the Public Option Against a Republican Member of Congress...???

Hmm...

Shep Smith of Fox News challenging Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) on why the public option will allow for the type of reform that the country needs. Why is this notable? Well, Shep Smith is from Fox News. Fox News' general stance on the public option (which they call the "government run option") appears to be going against the effort (link here and link here - Youtube). Upwards of 60% of the country is in favor of the public (non-profit) option. Apparently Shepard Smith agrees.

Watch the exchange below:



Here's a key exerpt from the exchange:

SMITH: "Over the last ten years health care costs in America have skyrocketed. Regular folks cannot afford it. So, they tax the system by not getting preventative medicine. They go to the emergency room in the last case and we all wind up paying for it. As the costs have gone up, the insurance industry's profits, on average, have gone up more than 350%. And it is the insurance companies which have paid, and who have contributed to Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle to the point where now we cannot get what all concerned on Capitol Hill seem to believe and more 60% of Americans say they would support, which is a public option. This has been an enormous win for the health-care industry, that is an unquestioned fact. But I wonder, what happens to the American people when we come out with legislation now which requires everyone to have health care insurance -- or many more people -- but does not give a public option? Therefore millions more people will have to buy insurance from the very corporations that are overcharging us, and whose profits have gone up 350 percent in the last ten years. It seems like we the people are the ones getting the shaft here. ... But with every vote against the public option is a vote for the insurance companies, sir, it is." (Huffington Post)

--
a.Rias
http://poli-babble.blogspot.com/

More Health Care Debates...This One Gets Ugly

Betsy McCaughey and Rep. Anthony Weiner on "Morning Meeting" with Dylan Ratigan



A link from the perspective of the Huffington Post (link)

--
a.Rias
http://poli-babble.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Michael Moore vs. Capitalism

http://www.dougjumper.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/capitalism.jpg

Amid a number of battles the U.S. finds itself in the trenches of (foreign efforts, health care reform, drug law reform, big pharma, etc.), the questions swirling around the country's economic solvency have started to bring focus away from the symptoms and closer to the root. The place of Capitalism within our Democratic fabric is now within the cross-hairs of filmmaker Michael Moore. Closing in on the opening day of his new film "Capitalism: A Love Story", the filmmaker is making his rounds on the television interview circuit (links below).

On CNBC: (Link to video)

On CNN w/Wolf Blitzer: (Link)


On MSNBC's Hardball w/Chris Matthews: (Link)


On MSNBC's Countdown w/Keith Olberman (Link)


On CNN's Larry King Live w/Larry King (Link)


Official Trailer (Link)


--
a.Rias
poli-babble.blogspot.com

The Health Care Battle: Updated


(photo from NY TIMES)

Sept. 30, 2009, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee voted down two Health Care bill amendments proposed by Sen. J. Rockefeller (D-WV) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) [in above photo].
(Link from NY TIMES)

Proponents of the public option are still optimistic--despite the 15-8 and 13-10 votes against--that the final Bill will include it. Four of the five Bills throughout the House include a public option. Opponents of the public option remain poised to defeat it.

An NY Times/CBS poll suggest that 65% of Americans are in favor of a Public Option.
(Link from Huffington Post)

Some say that a bill can be expected by the end of this year (2009).

Stay tuned.

--
a.Rias
poli-babble.blogspot.com

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Monday, July 20, 2009

Affirmative Action, Identity Politics and Sotomayor

Pat Buchanan vs. Rachel Maddow on Affirmative Action and Judge Sotomayor


Sotomayor Hearigns Spark Identity Politics
http://tinyurl.com/nxrykz

Last week, I had a discussion about affirmative action and Sotomayor with a co-worker who happens to be a white male from the suburbs. His point of view about Sotomayor's appointment was similar to that of Pat Buchanan; she is where she is because of affirmative action, wouldn't be in this position otherwise, and was considered over equally or better qualified people largely because of her identity as a Latina. When I asked him in what other ways the playing field could be leveled in order to balance minority and majority populations, he had no resolution and no idea how to approach it. I also got the impression that he didn't think anything should be done to level things--that things are as they are because they should be.

But when you think about it, do you blame him or anyone else who may think similarly? Who would willfully give up an opportunity at success for someone else to take? Someone who they don't know and won't know. Who wants bare a weighted vest in a race, to be forced to slow down, in order to allow others to catch up?

Then again, who would want to be prohibited from participating in the race, watching others run freely? Who would willfully subject themselves to centuries of "ownership" and second- (or third-) class citizenship, to forego personal ambitions of success, and have societal limitations placed upon you, all for the betterment of those who will use you to enhance only their own success?

Both are legitimate points of view.

Also, although my co-worker recognizes that discrimination has had an obvious presence in American history and culture, he doesn't understand difficulties that the minority population faces. But then again, how could he know what it is about? I don't know what it is to be a white male from the suburbs. He doesn't know what it's like to be a black male in the big city. But who said that we have to know what it is to be someone else. Perhaps what is more important is that we understand that we can have different points of view, and that we should be able to discuss them.

This period of time is a turning point in American history. Issues of race and discrimination (of gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, political affiliation, etc.) are all now mainstream societal issues today. All of the taboo conversation topics of the past are front page headlines today. Yes, it polarizes society. But instead of polarizing politically (Democrat vs. Republican), it polarizes people from topic to topic, from identifying issue to identifying issue, allowing a lot more room for overlapping identities and outlook on society, rather than one or the other. The issues are being laid on the table publically for us all to see, hear, discuss and develop opinions about. At the very least, I think, this is good for the growth of society in a "destroy and rebuild" kind of way. We don't necessarily need to know how to be someone else, but we should understand who they are.

Thoughts?

--
a.Rias
http://poli-babble.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

National Debt for Beginners

For anyone puzzled by economic catch phrases, code words and terms, I present (really NPR presents):

National Debt for Beginners

This is a good, concise piece putting national debt into context.

With the annual U.S. government deficit recently projected at $1.2 trillion (not counting additional spending expected from the fiscal stimulus package now before Congress) and President Barack Obama warning about "red ink as far as the eye can see," government debt is once again near the top of the policy agenda. Which raises the question: What is government debt? And what's so bad about it?

National Debt for Beginners

--
a.Rias
http://poli-babble.blogspot.com/