I keep hearing the American people are poorly educated about politics especially when compared to generations past. This has bothered me, but I couldn't put my finger on the deeper reason behind this trend until I was reading the article "That's Infotainment!" by Matt Nisbet. He really summed it up when he shared that, "[this new generation has the ability to] virtually ignore the news altogether, choosing alternative programming."
In past generations they did not have tball, karate, dance, volleyball, basketball and every other assortment of things weighing on a persons schedule. Once someone left work they were relatively free to socialize or stay home and watch TV. The big difference? If they watched TV, they were virtually forced to watch the news. Every tv station had a news program. With newspapers, people had enough time to stop and read the newspaper from cover to cover. As compared to now, people have a choice and they choose to watch Grey's Anatomy, Desperate Housewives, Jersey Shore or whatever entertaining show they are captivated with. This has driven the mass media to try and add entertainment value to the news, thus diluting it and making it less trustworthy, in turn making people less educated about important issues even when they think they are extremely educated.
It is the power of choice and the downfall of good/honest journalism. I wish I lived in the time of Walter Cronkite. Wow. What a journalistic legend and you knew if he was telling you something that it was to be taken seriously. I don't know that there is a single journalist alive today that I can take as seriously as the world took Cronkite. What a shame. What a shame that people choose not to watch the news, and what a shame the news is just about selling advertising and getting viewers and doing whatever it takes to do that. I could rant more, but I suppose I'll stop here. you get the point.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
The Electoral College
I have always thought the concept of the electoral college was a little weird and I know the majority of Americans want to change or get rid of it, but what Harold Meyerson addresses in his article "The GOP is Trying to Rig the Electoral College," makes me angry. His article in the Washington Post discusses that in Pennsylvania, Senate Majority Leader, Dominic Pileggi (R), has proposed to change the way the electoral college's votes are apportioned to a way that is shifty and down right unacceptable.
Pileggi's idea is to change the state from purely a majority vote awarding all the electoral votes in that state, to each district getting a corresponding electoral vote. At first it sounds fair enough, but it could allow the minority to have more electoral votes. For example, if in his state 200,000 people are crammed into 3 districts who vote for 'president A' and then 50,000 people are spread out in 12 districts who vote for 'president B', then the 200,000 only get 3 electoral votes and the 50,000 would get 12. This results in electing a president based off the votes of a smaller percentage of the population. Perhaps Pileggi thinks he has sound reasoning behind this idea, but the facts speak for themselves. We can not allow a smaller number of people to dictate where electoral votes are going to go. I am concerned with any representative that would support such a proposition. Who are these people we have elected into office to take care of us and why are they taking care of themselves and not the citizens? Somewhere along the way, our entire system created too much room for corruption, which is sad because that is what the founding fathers were trying to prevent.
It is obvious that in this article Harold Meyerson is talking directly to the public about this problem. When it comes down to it, I know very few honest citizens who would be comfortable with Pileggi's proposition. Meyerson wants to rant about this injustice, but he also wants the public to become educated on this topic because with education comes people standing up for what is right. As far as Meyerson's credibility, he has been an editor for a political magazine and for the L.A. Weekly for some time, as well as a radio host. I feel he has quite a political background and his response to this issue is well educated. As far as his claim, I would have to agree with his outrage on this issue; his logic is spot on and his evidence from the sources he references is solid. He did his homework when writing this article and it is hard to believe that Pileggi would even propose such a self-serving idea.
Pileggi's idea is to change the state from purely a majority vote awarding all the electoral votes in that state, to each district getting a corresponding electoral vote. At first it sounds fair enough, but it could allow the minority to have more electoral votes. For example, if in his state 200,000 people are crammed into 3 districts who vote for 'president A' and then 50,000 people are spread out in 12 districts who vote for 'president B', then the 200,000 only get 3 electoral votes and the 50,000 would get 12. This results in electing a president based off the votes of a smaller percentage of the population. Perhaps Pileggi thinks he has sound reasoning behind this idea, but the facts speak for themselves. We can not allow a smaller number of people to dictate where electoral votes are going to go. I am concerned with any representative that would support such a proposition. Who are these people we have elected into office to take care of us and why are they taking care of themselves and not the citizens? Somewhere along the way, our entire system created too much room for corruption, which is sad because that is what the founding fathers were trying to prevent.
It is obvious that in this article Harold Meyerson is talking directly to the public about this problem. When it comes down to it, I know very few honest citizens who would be comfortable with Pileggi's proposition. Meyerson wants to rant about this injustice, but he also wants the public to become educated on this topic because with education comes people standing up for what is right. As far as Meyerson's credibility, he has been an editor for a political magazine and for the L.A. Weekly for some time, as well as a radio host. I feel he has quite a political background and his response to this issue is well educated. As far as his claim, I would have to agree with his outrage on this issue; his logic is spot on and his evidence from the sources he references is solid. He did his homework when writing this article and it is hard to believe that Pileggi would even propose such a self-serving idea.
Friday, September 23, 2011
This ticks me off
Congress is making a fool of itself and if anyone up there wants to stay in their post they need to watch what they are doing to their constituents back home. I was reading the USA Today website and found a current article talking about how the government is on the verge of a near shut down. again. AGAIN! Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said it all when he said "Americans are tired of this partisanship. They deserve to know that when disasters strike, we will be there to help them." This division is killing them and us. We need more people to stand up and say "Let's put on our big boy pants today and actually work on a compromise."
Do these congessman/women think that what they are doing is right? Or is it just a case of ignorance and showboating. I looked up showboating, it fits so perfectly, it means to exhibit a grotesque amount of undue and unfounded pride for a skill or ability which is actually mediocre. Yep. Congress is mediocre and the public opinion reflects it; congress is sitting at a 15% approval rating. They are a bunch of do-nothings and worst than that, they are a bunch of stop-everythings. These kinds of behaviors are only going to hurt them.
Plus, the fact that they must wait until the 11th hour to do anything is very telling and it breaks my heart, which in turn ticks me off. If they must wait until the absolutely last possible minute to work out something that will keep their own jobs moving, then how motivated are they to honestly getting other peoples jobs moving? It doesn't look promising for the American public. What bothers me the most is that after Labor Day Obama addressed Congress and said that if they planned to wait until we elected a new president to start moving things along, that it would be a long wait for the citizens who don't have jobs or need help. That comment really resonated with me and to be honest it worries me because it looks like that is the exactly the plan of congress and countless Americans will suffer for their stubbornness. God. Bless. America (we need it).
Do these congessman/women think that what they are doing is right? Or is it just a case of ignorance and showboating. I looked up showboating, it fits so perfectly, it means to exhibit a grotesque amount of undue and unfounded pride for a skill or ability which is actually mediocre. Yep. Congress is mediocre and the public opinion reflects it; congress is sitting at a 15% approval rating. They are a bunch of do-nothings and worst than that, they are a bunch of stop-everythings. These kinds of behaviors are only going to hurt them.
Plus, the fact that they must wait until the 11th hour to do anything is very telling and it breaks my heart, which in turn ticks me off. If they must wait until the absolutely last possible minute to work out something that will keep their own jobs moving, then how motivated are they to honestly getting other peoples jobs moving? It doesn't look promising for the American public. What bothers me the most is that after Labor Day Obama addressed Congress and said that if they planned to wait until we elected a new president to start moving things along, that it would be a long wait for the citizens who don't have jobs or need help. That comment really resonated with me and to be honest it worries me because it looks like that is the exactly the plan of congress and countless Americans will suffer for their stubbornness. God. Bless. America (we need it).
California Rep. Debate
Ok ok, it took me forever to finish watching this debate and make my post! But here are my thoughts on the California Republican Debate, forgive my grammar and writing, I'm just getting my thoughts on paper..... rather, the web.
Overall, I really enjoyed the cohesiveness of the republicans. They really refused to be divided all that much. They were determined to beat Obama and find the best candidate to do so and less interested in tearing apart the other candidates. Kudos to them! They took the high road.
Right out of the box the thing that stinks me is a lot of the candidates continue to say "If I get elected, on day one, I'm going to do _____." That killed me. #1 Do they really think the American public is so stupid to think that they can do that all on their own? #2 I sure hope they aren't diluted enough to think that they really can do all that immediately? If they could, then our country would change drastically every time we got a new president. I hope for their sake that it is just political lingo and not a true belief that they can really make such changes on day one without having to go through any processes.
They brought up Social Security a lot. I feel like Perry will end up with the young vote since he is appealing to their concern that it won't last long enough for them to receive it. robbing the program to pay other people. Even on this issue Perry and Romney refused to let the questions divide them. I think in general the mass media are trying to polarize this idea that Social Security is a ponzi scheme, but what they don't understand is that Perry is just trying to get people talking about. Sure there are some key differences, yes the public is aware, yes it isn't optional, so by pure definition it may not be a ponzi scheme, but what Perry and Romney are wanting people to see is that it is not going to work long term without some major changes. I have to agree and I think most of my generation agrees with that concern as well.
On the topic of the HPV vaccine. Bachman was trying to make this issue divisive and she said it isn't right for the government to force people to take a vaccine. However, we have a lot of mandates for childrens vaccines already. Kids can't go to school without certain shots and they must provide a shot record in order to register for school. So that isn't a valid way to oppose Perry's initiative. On another note, by age 50, 80% of women in america have HPV, and it is known to be a cause for cancer. I am with Perry on this. Any other disease or cancer of the body that can be prevented would have been on the vaccine list long ago. It doesn't make sense that this one would be excluded. Something needs to be done, I think Perry was right in what he did. I found it interesting that even Romney supported Perry, saying Perry knew he should have go about it differently, but his heart was in the right place. That support again shows how united the GOP is.
I have a lot to say about Congressman Ron Paul. #1, I can't stand him, he is extremely far right. To me, he is irrational and I am unsure how he can get any supporters, are his fans as uneducated as the entire GOP is turning out to be? I'm so confused on how people can support him. He wants to abolish way too much of the government. i.e., Take air conditioning away from our armed forces? are you kidding me? These people are there because our government put them there, they deal with 120+ degree weather, that is an unacceptable to consider taking away their A/C simply because it costs us a lot. That is part of the cost of war that is in a place that we are unaccustomed to living in. unacceptable Ron Paul, unacceptable.
They brought up the topic of Texas school reductions. That may be the case, but Perry pointed out that the graduation rates are up to 84%, which is higher than ever before. If he has raised the graduation rates to the highest level a state has ever seen, how can you condemn him for that? He is doing the best with what he has. To that point, he said: "That is what happens when you share the boarder with Mexico; we have a unique situation in our state." This isn't him trying to push the blame onto the Mexican immigrants. This is pure fact. We do share a boarder with another country that is pouring in immigrants into our state. It does skew our numbers, which then brings us back to the 84% graduation rate and it makes me admire him for that even more.
Perry was also asked about border security. I really agreed when he said: "For the President of the United States to go down to El Paso, Tx and say that our border has been the safest it has ever been, either he has some of the poorest intel. of a President in the history of this country or he was an abject liar to the American people. It is not safe on that boarder." It isn't safe, and the border is only halfway protected. Everyone in Texas knows that the closer you get to the border, the more dangerous it is. I also liked his point that we need to turn off the magnet. i.e., stop giving them jobs, stop giving them aid to school. Those things draws them here. I enjoyed hearing the GOP unite on this subject. They all said that first they needed to get the fence on the border complete and secure and after that then they would be able to effectively talk about immigration reform.
Perry, seems to want to walk a narrow line on the environment. One moment he talks about not believing that human activity is affecting our environment, and in the next he talks about how he lowered emissions in Texas more than any other state. That doesn't make sense. If he doesn't believe the environment is changing because of our interaction, then why is he actively trying to change the emissions in Texas? I would like to see him clear this up in the future. Still on Perry, but another subject; the death penalty. He keeps getting bashed for it, but I don't think it's fair. Perry said if you come into our state and you murder someone, you will be prosectued and given a fair trial. If you have committed a murder you will recieve the full punishment for your actions and be put to death. He keeps getting flak for that, but then isn't that what we did when 9/11 happened? We basically said, if you come into our land and kill our people, then you receieve the ultimate punishment of death. Obviously as a nation we agree with Perry and it's not like he is going to instill a Nation wide death penalty, so really I feel this question isn't debate worthy.
Ok, as much as I have a distaste for Ron Paul, I agree on some small level with him. The moderator asked him how he felt about school provided lunches. He kept saying if it was on a state/local level then he was fine with it, but the government doesn't need to mandate it. I suppose it made me really think about how, as a culture, we truly rely on the government to feed starving kids and meet the needs of the community. We refuse to do it for our neighbors and pass the buck on to the government to do something about it. Our communities have become apathetic and have hidden away in our suburben houses. We need to stop allowing the government to do what the community should be doing. If we actually get out of our houses and know our neighbors then we can meet the needs of those around us and then we wouldn't need government to feed these poor kids who have nothing to eat. All of that said, I'm not sure the American public will do it, so at the end of the day, I don't think what Ron Paul wants will actually work out. I think idealistically it sounds great, but in reality it isn't feasible. Just my thoughts.
Well, that's my soapbox. Now it's time to watch the New Hampshire GOP Debate and put my 2 cents in on that one.
Overall, I really enjoyed the cohesiveness of the republicans. They really refused to be divided all that much. They were determined to beat Obama and find the best candidate to do so and less interested in tearing apart the other candidates. Kudos to them! They took the high road.
Right out of the box the thing that stinks me is a lot of the candidates continue to say "If I get elected, on day one, I'm going to do _____." That killed me. #1 Do they really think the American public is so stupid to think that they can do that all on their own? #2 I sure hope they aren't diluted enough to think that they really can do all that immediately? If they could, then our country would change drastically every time we got a new president. I hope for their sake that it is just political lingo and not a true belief that they can really make such changes on day one without having to go through any processes.
They brought up Social Security a lot. I feel like Perry will end up with the young vote since he is appealing to their concern that it won't last long enough for them to receive it. robbing the program to pay other people. Even on this issue Perry and Romney refused to let the questions divide them. I think in general the mass media are trying to polarize this idea that Social Security is a ponzi scheme, but what they don't understand is that Perry is just trying to get people talking about. Sure there are some key differences, yes the public is aware, yes it isn't optional, so by pure definition it may not be a ponzi scheme, but what Perry and Romney are wanting people to see is that it is not going to work long term without some major changes. I have to agree and I think most of my generation agrees with that concern as well.
On the topic of the HPV vaccine. Bachman was trying to make this issue divisive and she said it isn't right for the government to force people to take a vaccine. However, we have a lot of mandates for childrens vaccines already. Kids can't go to school without certain shots and they must provide a shot record in order to register for school. So that isn't a valid way to oppose Perry's initiative. On another note, by age 50, 80% of women in america have HPV, and it is known to be a cause for cancer. I am with Perry on this. Any other disease or cancer of the body that can be prevented would have been on the vaccine list long ago. It doesn't make sense that this one would be excluded. Something needs to be done, I think Perry was right in what he did. I found it interesting that even Romney supported Perry, saying Perry knew he should have go about it differently, but his heart was in the right place. That support again shows how united the GOP is.
I have a lot to say about Congressman Ron Paul. #1, I can't stand him, he is extremely far right. To me, he is irrational and I am unsure how he can get any supporters, are his fans as uneducated as the entire GOP is turning out to be? I'm so confused on how people can support him. He wants to abolish way too much of the government. i.e., Take air conditioning away from our armed forces? are you kidding me? These people are there because our government put them there, they deal with 120+ degree weather, that is an unacceptable to consider taking away their A/C simply because it costs us a lot. That is part of the cost of war that is in a place that we are unaccustomed to living in. unacceptable Ron Paul, unacceptable.
They brought up the topic of Texas school reductions. That may be the case, but Perry pointed out that the graduation rates are up to 84%, which is higher than ever before. If he has raised the graduation rates to the highest level a state has ever seen, how can you condemn him for that? He is doing the best with what he has. To that point, he said: "That is what happens when you share the boarder with Mexico; we have a unique situation in our state." This isn't him trying to push the blame onto the Mexican immigrants. This is pure fact. We do share a boarder with another country that is pouring in immigrants into our state. It does skew our numbers, which then brings us back to the 84% graduation rate and it makes me admire him for that even more.
Perry was also asked about border security. I really agreed when he said: "For the President of the United States to go down to El Paso, Tx and say that our border has been the safest it has ever been, either he has some of the poorest intel. of a President in the history of this country or he was an abject liar to the American people. It is not safe on that boarder." It isn't safe, and the border is only halfway protected. Everyone in Texas knows that the closer you get to the border, the more dangerous it is. I also liked his point that we need to turn off the magnet. i.e., stop giving them jobs, stop giving them aid to school. Those things draws them here. I enjoyed hearing the GOP unite on this subject. They all said that first they needed to get the fence on the border complete and secure and after that then they would be able to effectively talk about immigration reform.
Perry, seems to want to walk a narrow line on the environment. One moment he talks about not believing that human activity is affecting our environment, and in the next he talks about how he lowered emissions in Texas more than any other state. That doesn't make sense. If he doesn't believe the environment is changing because of our interaction, then why is he actively trying to change the emissions in Texas? I would like to see him clear this up in the future. Still on Perry, but another subject; the death penalty. He keeps getting bashed for it, but I don't think it's fair. Perry said if you come into our state and you murder someone, you will be prosectued and given a fair trial. If you have committed a murder you will recieve the full punishment for your actions and be put to death. He keeps getting flak for that, but then isn't that what we did when 9/11 happened? We basically said, if you come into our land and kill our people, then you receieve the ultimate punishment of death. Obviously as a nation we agree with Perry and it's not like he is going to instill a Nation wide death penalty, so really I feel this question isn't debate worthy.
Ok, as much as I have a distaste for Ron Paul, I agree on some small level with him. The moderator asked him how he felt about school provided lunches. He kept saying if it was on a state/local level then he was fine with it, but the government doesn't need to mandate it. I suppose it made me really think about how, as a culture, we truly rely on the government to feed starving kids and meet the needs of the community. We refuse to do it for our neighbors and pass the buck on to the government to do something about it. Our communities have become apathetic and have hidden away in our suburben houses. We need to stop allowing the government to do what the community should be doing. If we actually get out of our houses and know our neighbors then we can meet the needs of those around us and then we wouldn't need government to feed these poor kids who have nothing to eat. All of that said, I'm not sure the American public will do it, so at the end of the day, I don't think what Ron Paul wants will actually work out. I think idealistically it sounds great, but in reality it isn't feasible. Just my thoughts.
Well, that's my soapbox. Now it's time to watch the New Hampshire GOP Debate and put my 2 cents in on that one.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Does Obama Have a Chance?
It is time again to start pondering if the current President has put himself in a place to be re-elected or if he has effectively lost the re-election battle before it has even started. In an article by The Christian Science Monitor written on September 3rd 2011, they dive into just that question.
It is an interesting question to ponder especially for the Obama administration. The article "Is Election 2012 the GOP's to lose? What Obama could do" really walks that fine line of political bias and offers a great overall picture of the obstacles Obama will be facing. First and foremost, it is a great read simply because it does not feel like the writer has an agenda. It is written in a very clear and unbiased manner as it really opens up the ways Obama could still win the election yet also shows that it will be a hard road and if he is not careful, the GOP could hit a home run without even trying.
In this article it shows how Obama is facing some tough issues that he needs to overcome (or explain away) in order to be re-elected. With a high unemployment rate and the debt crisis, Obama has the obstacle of trying to communicate that all the issues his office has faced were not all his fault. However, the author, Linda Feldman, points out that Obama does not have to convince everyone, but just enough people to win the election. The question is, can he? I highly suggest diving into this article as it really is a well written, easy read, with some great thoughts to ponder as we begin our election season.
It is an interesting question to ponder especially for the Obama administration. The article "Is Election 2012 the GOP's to lose? What Obama could do" really walks that fine line of political bias and offers a great overall picture of the obstacles Obama will be facing. First and foremost, it is a great read simply because it does not feel like the writer has an agenda. It is written in a very clear and unbiased manner as it really opens up the ways Obama could still win the election yet also shows that it will be a hard road and if he is not careful, the GOP could hit a home run without even trying.
In this article it shows how Obama is facing some tough issues that he needs to overcome (or explain away) in order to be re-elected. With a high unemployment rate and the debt crisis, Obama has the obstacle of trying to communicate that all the issues his office has faced were not all his fault. However, the author, Linda Feldman, points out that Obama does not have to convince everyone, but just enough people to win the election. The question is, can he? I highly suggest diving into this article as it really is a well written, easy read, with some great thoughts to ponder as we begin our election season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)