Americans are close-minded and gullible people. They follow fads religiously which they vehemently pledge to be true. As a result, they remain blissfully ignorant of the collateral effects of their beliefs/actions. The same applies to their media. This is the reason their knowledge and concern for issues that matter is, at best, diminutive and ordinarily nonexistent but their knowledge of “fluff” is astounding.
The American media, if you have not noticed, is chalked full of “rallying points,” issues that are simple and enthralling – perfect for the common gentry (or as “elitist” Daniel thinks, the simple man). However, for public awareness, such issues are poison as they are easy to polarize (which makes them tres easy to understand). This lack of grey area in today’s media is menacing to the overall intelligence of the audience of the newscast that, thanks to globalization, covers millions upon millions. This distillation of critical and impending issues for the ease of listener comprehension leads to the inflation of cretinous news as illustrated by the modern focus upon illegal immigration, same-sex marriage, and abortion – in the grand scheme of things, frivolous. It is worth noting that these three prime examples are also key political issues of the day.
One blog which I recently read called the use of profanity “a decline in the morals of America” and, in context, named the issue a pressing one (said blog and author shall remain nameless and citeless). With no insult to the author intended, who actually cares about a news anchor’s diction when taken into the big picture? Or is that the problem, do the people of today not see in the big picture but let merely narrow minded maxims guide all of their opinions?
Today there are mass genocides across the continent of Africa and the outbreak of World War III looms on the eastern horizon – two matters which, in my humble opinion, deserve far more attention than this degrading fluff filling the AP wires. Important issues, in comparison to Nancy Grace’s muttonheaded rants, are trivial in the social atmosphere of today. This, for the future of the human race, needs to stop. Americans hold dear the false conception that everything worth knowing is on CNN or MSNBC – that is as true as believing “if Wal-Mart don’t got it, you don’t need it.” Judge for yourself.
Obviously, unless you reside inside a cave, you are aware of the race for the Democratic Presidential nominee, the race of all races (no pun intended, Barack), the match up of all match ups. My friends, this is the modern day Rumble in the Jungle, the jungle of American journalism – the deceptive jungle, that is. The question is: will Ali, the veteran, Hillary, snatch victory from the seemingly opening jaws of defeat?
Yes — although the Clinton political dynasty currently looks to be on the downward side of a slippery slope, one can never count them out – Hillary and Bill know how to play the game, they’ve helped make the rules. Without question, the catalyst for the downward regression of Clinton’s poll numbers is the media and its representation of Hillary as one whom categorically operates on evil motives.
In order for Clinton to both turn her career around and secure the nomination, a drastic swing in the media must occur, and fast. Hillary must shed this draconian, demonic, impersonal reputation to gain votes which, if she does, she will get faster than Mitt Romney shed his tan after being dismissed from the race. But why? Why can Hillary Clinton, baring media prejudices, vanquish Obama head-to-head? The answer is simple: experience.
However, barring the outstanding stances of Clinton compared to those of Obama, one must consider the commercial and moral appeal of this deadlock without personal bias. Democratic turnout this primary season is extremely high – same for grassroots. The Democratic schism, it seems, energizes the Party, benefiting whoever is the nominee as well as giving the Democrats a vision for a better deal – something to fight for. If the surge continues, an exciting general election will result which, in turn, will bring about higher Democratic participation, leading to both a gain in the Executive Branch but also in the Legislative.
This all reduces to the fight between the ages, Hillary, 60, and Barack, 45 as both candidates provide the party with inspiration. Sure Barack is the young gun, the “candidate of change,” but does he have all of the weapons necessary to take down a political legend, Hillary? No, as was shown in the Congo one summer evening, experience matters.
Mr. Obama, your time will come. Unfortunately for you, the Clinton dynasty lives.
What dichotomy exists between the work and costs thereof between the Buddhist Monks (page 109) and the workers Ehrenreich experiences?
What are your opinions on the “Rent-A-Wreck” that the author has? Does this influence her ability to go into the level of poverty she aspires to reach? How so?
Are the Wal-Martian principles of “respect for the individual, exceeding customers’ expectations, [and] strive for excellent” accurate vis-à-vis the jobs of lower working class and work ethic thereof?
Everyone: sorry for how late these were!
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” according to some old, departed codgers who, in 1788, decided to make history. While exploring the pits of Memphis, a city in which many exist, I came across the utopia of tactical defense, and, depending on one’s definition, offense, Guns and Ammo (no correlation to the magazine). In this store a colorful bounty of culturally diverse people frolicked, arming themselves for sundry reasons, many of which I choose not to imagine – that’s the job of the Memphis Police Department. It was in this store, near the assault rifles, a sign caught my attention. The vehement yet simplistic diction became etched in my mind forever: “Gun Control is Using Both Hands.”
The American South historically is known for its love affair with firearms, pure cold steel possible of stopping anything, whether it be bear or intruder. The affair over the years has been indomitable and is a sterling indicator of the failure of the politics of the Democratic Party, inter alia the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban (which has recently expired), which due to its provisions caused many a complaint from the Southern gentry in particular. However, the bill set qualifications that, to me, make perfect sense: one must wait five days to purchase a handgun for a background check to be completed, and no rifles, semi-automatic or otherwise, may have a barrel less that sixteen inches, to name a few.
However, the question remains: How much gun control is tolerable by the people? Certain weapons to me have one purpose: to kill people, trust me, I have shot them – many times. The need for an AR-15 or Barrett in Arkansas is practically non-existent however, pursuant to the Constitution of this land, no law shall outright ban such a weapon as it is the right of the people to possess them. Here lies a dilemma. The law says that these weapons are legal to possess by the public but their level of dangerousness is unparalleled by anything nearly short of a missile. How then can these be offered to the public in a safe fashion in the best interest of safety for the people?
The complete dismissal of weapon control by the government is a one-way ticket to anarchy in which people, armed to their wishes, shall hypothetically turn the America of tomorrow into the Chicago of the Capone days. However, total ban upon weapons shall abridge the rights of American citizens, an intolerable option. Thus a median needs to be addressed.
For many, concealed weapons, among others, serve as a deterrent against crime. In a crime-ridden city such as Memphis, open carry of weapons is a practice employed with frequency. Many would argue that firearm deterrents are the civilian equivalent of nuclear deterrents for governments: they are possessed because others have them as well, a way to level the playing field of defense. In a perfect world, no one would have firearms nor missiles but in the state of the world today, many do, criminals and law abiding citizens alike. Thus they would argue that gun control infringes on their right to self defense.
If you cover current event, an atrocity committed by an American-based protection firm, Blackwater USA, in Iraq yielded in a violent, bloody slaughtering of innocent Iraqis — something that has been happening more and more frequently in Iraq, espically with this company. The article covered in this post was published in the New York Times and believed that such violent actions were wrong. What is even more wrong is that such transgressions remain exempt from the law, a nice clause in the Blackwater contract that was allowed by Congress — the same Congress that maintains our ’standards’ of public education.
It it not time we hold accountable our actions on the battlefield, espically on one which we call ourselves “liberators?” I think so.
“Accountability on the Battlefield.” The New York Times 30 SEP 2007 01 OCT 2007 .
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/opinion/08mon2.html?ref=opinion>
Firstly, before I am somehow slighted for my title, let me say that the first clause of which is the title of my article…. Now that that’s done, let me progress.
Thomas Friedman, the author of this New York Times editorial, may sound familiar — he is the author of The World is Flat. The main topic of the editorial in question is “9/11 Is Over,” in which Friedman rationally urges that America should progress from September 11, 2001 into something better and less one sided. In fact, Friedman even says that someone who runs on a “9/11 ticket” will definatley not get his vote — something I endorse greatly. Because of such ideas, I find Friedman’s article delightfully agreeable for a meadley of reasons:
First of all, Friedman, a conservative I believe, says that America’s main export is fear, something that I see streaming from the White House Press Room daily. It is this fear that drives the Iraq war machine, as funded by our tax dollars, and is the reason companies such as Blackwater can tirade around Iraq with a licence to kill — all because of our fear.
Secondly, Friedman is very much against the institution of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which he refers to as the “anti-Statue of Liberty.” I also find this idea appealing and a way to at least show some effort to the global community that we, the Americans, value liberty for all, as our laws suggest.
Finally, and most importantly, Friedman proposes focusing on 9/12 rather than 9/11. A popular expression goes as follows: “When you fall off the horse, you get back up.” Please don’t mistake me for thinking something like 9/11 was not a heinous act, as it surely was. However, it is the American spirit to rebound from our troubles and solve our problems — not to attack at will and act in other repugnant ways, namely the imprisionment of people without the writ of habeas corpus, that is truly unamerican.
Friedman, Thomas. “9/11 is Over.” The New York Times 30 SEP 2007 01 OCT 2007 .
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/opinion/30friedman.html?n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Thomas%20L%20Friedman>
MacFarquhar brings the topic of religious equality to the spotlight in this article, which also brings undertones of ignorance to light. He shows the injustices and stereotypes that Muslims face and their role as a “somehow suspect” in American society. The article says that America should be able to “distinguish between mainstream Muslims and the radical fringe.” Sadly, many Americans can’t tell the difference. Congressman Keith Ellison bears the brunt of this wave of ignorance as the only Representative in congress. In fact, the article references an open letter from two House members, which refers to the Islamic Society of North America as a group of “radical jihadists.”
It is time for America to group up. This juvenile hatred is a disgusting blob that is repugnant at best for the society and the morals of America. This “witch hunt” of Muslims, forged by a lack of understanding after September 11th, is nothing but vile ignorance masquerading as a political issue. This “War on Terror,” which in my view is terror spawned by America, has generalized this ethnic group to further propaganda for militarism (more on the media’s role in this saga later). This propaganda finds its way into politics and sound bites, as seen by an open letter about the Islamic Society of North America (quoted above). Any person, regardless of their position in government, has no excuse to generalize an ethnic group of people and show disdain for them based on myths – none ant therefore, I completely agree with MacFarquhar’s stance.
MacFarquhar , Neil. “Abandon Stereotypes, Muslims in America Say.” The New York Times 04 Sep 207 29 Sep 2007 .
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/us/04muslims.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>
The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights has always secured for us a sense of confidence to speak out, a belief that we can voice our conserns, and project our opinions. Unfortunatley, this right is being assailed, thus the topic of my article. Powers raises questions that need answers, including why journalists face threats if they investigate. Has American morals decreased so much that our government can censor our every word, much less every word in a clear transgression of one of our most sacred documents? More importantly, has the government supression and attack on journalism hindered us, the people, from learning facts about current events? What a shame.
Here’s my article:
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
“Court Upholds Media Right to Shield Sources.” So reported the headline last week in the English-language version of one of Japan’s largest newspapers, The Asahi Shimbun.
On one hand, it was the kind of news we’re not used to seeing lately in the United States, where the trend has been running more along the lines of “Media Under Attack for Anonymous Leaks.”
But even more surprising is the notion that other democratic countries are struggling with the same questions we’re facing, about anonymous sources, the law, and the press.
America’s media culture is just a tad self-absorbed, and we tend to assume that our problems are singular. Thus, the current debate about leaks and protecting sources is typically framed as a result of peculiarly domestic happenings. It took off with the Valerie Plame story. It went into overdrive a few weeks ago when reporters for The New York Times and The Washington Post won Pulitzer Prizes for their stories about secret government operations. And the CIA’s firing of suspected leaker Mary McCarthy raised the pitch even higher.
Further strengthening the impression that this is a uniquely American debate, many U.S. journalists feel that the tension over leaks is wholly a result of the Bush administration’s relentless devaluing of the media.
The White House’s hostility toward journalism is indisputable, but is it the sole reason that anonymous sourcing is all over the headlines and that everyone is talking about reporters going to jail?
Valerie Plame The debate about leaks and protected sources took off with the Valerie Plame story.
Not if you look abroad. Australia, for instance, enacted a new sedition law as part of broad anti-terrorism legislation, and some observers already see a chilling effect on the news. “The risk of fines and jail terms prevents journalists from reporting details of detention orders and investigating possible miscarriages of justice,” according to a recent story in The Australian newspaper. As in the U.S., some Australian public officials are pushing for a national “shield law” for journalists.
In Mexico, where drug cartels and gangs make journalism dangerous, the government last month adopted the Professional Secrecy Act, which allows journalists to protect their sources.
In the Japanese case covered in The Asahi Shimbun, reporters from several different outlets who did work on the same story — about alleged tax evasion by a U.S. company’s Japanese subsidiary — have sought to protect their anonymous sources. In the most recent decision, the judge ruled that news sources are an “occupational secret” that reporters may, under certain circumstances, refuse to divulge. But in a separate decision, the same court held that one of the reporters in the case did not have the right to protect an anonymous source.
Why is this question popping up in so many places at once? Partly it’s because the Washington-driven war on terror has raised the stakes of secrecy everywhere. But it’s also a result of a broader trend you might call the digitization of society. Technology has made all kinds of information, from consumer data to satellite imagery, more accessible. And governments, corporations, and other entities that have an interest in keeping secrets find that accessibility threatening. Greater openness paradoxically breeds more secrecy. And reporters live at the intersection of the two trends.
As liberal democracies mature, they beget a drive to rationalize the gray areas, the parts of our collective life that do not have clean, consistent rules. Journalism based on anonymous sources is the premier example of this fuzzy zone. And all of the various responses to it, from jailing reporters to passing shield laws, are attempts to make things clear and binary: X is right, Y is wrong.
But fuzziness has a purpose. It’s difficult to make hard-and-fast rules about confidential sources. The competing interests — the public’s right to know, national security, and so on — all have legitimate claims.
Freedom of the press is a delicate dance, a never-ending series of judgment calls. The more tightly a society — any society — tries to define that freedom, the harder it becomes for journalists to do their jobs.
~~~~~~~~
By William Powers
Citation:
Powers, William. “This Leaky World.” National Journal 38(2006): 60-60.
Linky: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20819858&site=ehost-live
