Moveon.org Celebrity PSA

I was amused by this PSA that Will Ferrell and other celebrities did for MoveOn.org. If you haven't seen it yet, watch it first before watching the response by a group called Catholic Vote Action.



And the response:



I always have a hard time taking movie and TV stars seriously when they try to endorse a poltical belief. This particular ad didn't seem very effective, not what I saw anyway. Not only the response by CVA, but lots of people groaned and rolled their eyes at it.
Here's another one:



I think celebrity ads are past effective, especially a political ad. I have my own brain, and it always seems hypocritical to me that the same people who have private jets and 4 houses in Beverly Hills are the ones telling other people what to do with their money.

Propaganda: Is it Useful?

Well-known propaganda machine Michael Moore recently released a new film called Capitalism: A Love Story. I watched the trailer and I think it makes this movie look like a comedy and almost Jackass-esque. This is the trailer.
I have to admit, I cracked up at him standing outside a bank with a huge bag demanding the "American people's money back". It seems like he has to make a fool of himself to get people to look at him.
I have only seen one of his movies, Farenheit 9/11. I was young at the time, and my soft college-freshman brain was a clean slate for people to write in what they wanted me to think. Since then, I have developed my own opinions, and I am not so susceptible to propaganda. Still, I try to avoid it, because I find it mostly useless. I don't like conspiracy theories; that is what a lot of propaganda is, as far as I've seen.
Even as I try to avoid them, I have since seen other propaganda films. One was called Wal-Mart: High Cost of Low Prices. It was awhile ago, but one thing that stuck out to me was a chart of statistics showing the number of assaults and murders occurring in Wal-Mart parking lots because of the lack of lights and security. Something I immediately noticed was that Wal-Mart was the only store shown with these kinds of statistics. There was no comparison of assaults happening in other parking lots, which they obviously do. Parking lots are big dark places at night, and assaults can and do happen anywhere. That is what I thought of when I saw the statistics. I just kind of went, "So?" But that is what propaganda is. It preys on people like my tender, naive freshman self with no real opinions of their own by manipulating facts and presenting things the way they want the rest of the world to see them. And someone who is clueless about whatever particular issue is being shown, will immediately swallow it and accept it at face-value.
But does it have another purpose? Are there things we can learn from propoganda?
Here is a link to the Wal-Mart documentary if you are interested in watching it.

A side note, if you're going to put yourself in the spotlight to whine about how selfish people are, you might want to first make sure you don't weigh 400 pounds.

Right to Privacy for ALL Citizens?

Something that has always interested me is the way the private lives of politicians and authority figures becomes subjects of scandal in the media. As a general rule of thumb, I dislike politicians anyway, but I also do not think someone's extra-marital affairs are reason for them to have to resign or be fired. Given, if you make a career of being in the spotlight, expect people to publicize everything you do, but I think some things are blown way out of proportion.
For instance, when most people think of Bill Clinton, they think of the sex scandal. I understand he was impeached for lying under oath, but I don't blame him. I don't want the whole world knowing about my private life either. What does it really matter? It doesn't.
Recently, David Letterman announced on air that he had indeed had sexual relationships with women whom he worked with. Surprise, surprise. It's rich and famous. It's what the rich and famous do. Someone tried to extort him for 2 million dollars with this information, and if that's seriously all the "dirt" the guy has, I'm not impressed. I thought Letterman handled the matter humorously and casually, and if you watch the clip, you would think that would be the end of that.
Anoter scandal that happened recently was assemblyman Mike Duvall discussing his affair with someone under a microphone. No, that was not a smart thing to do. But I don't think he should have had to resign over it. If you don't know this story, here is a video.

I'm sure most of you disagree with me :p But that's good. Tell me what you think.

Bush Song vs. Obama Song

Haven't done a good job with keeping up with this thing, so I'm going to get a little spammy in the next couple days trying to catch up. But feel free to comment on any previous post if I make a new one before you get a chance. I appreciate the discussion in my last post, that's what I'm looking for! :D
In class today, an issue came up about the school children singing "praises" to Obama. Someone brought up the point that the same thing happened with school children right after Hurricane Katrina singing similar "praises" to George W Bush. Here's a link I found to that story:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/17/katrina-song/

The published date of the article is April 2006, so some time ago. Although most of us may not have heard about it, myself included, it's not something that's just now surfaced, even though it's being brought up now in response to the Obama song.
I think the reason the Bush song didn't get as much publicity and isn't nearly as creepy is because people weren't naming their children after George Bush before he was even elected (commence digging up stories on people who named their children after him -- one or two doesn't count). People have and do literally praise Obama, so I think that is why this story is getting so much attention in comparison to the other one.
What do you think?

Fairness Doctrine Debate

Today we did the debate on the Fairness Doctrine. The resolution was "The government should enact a 'Fairness Doctrine' in order to better ensure that coverage of political issues by broadcast stations be balanced and fair". I was on the negative side, which I readily volunteered for on the first day of class. Here is the text of everything I said in my introduction in case anyone missed it:

What’s important to remember about freedom of speech is that it is not a “right” given to people by the Constitution or any other government-issued document. Each individual is born with the natural rights to life and liberty. What the Constitution does is lay out what the government cannot do, not what the people CAN do. The freedom of speech and expression is part of liberty, of being free. The Fairness Doctrine, a bill passed in1949 by the Federal Communications Commission, infringed on these natural rights. This document required broadcasters to provide controversial news and public affairs, as well as quote reasonable opportunities for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints. Parts of it began to repeal in 1985, until it was finally completely repealed under the Regan administration in1987. FCC officials found that the doctrine quote had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance. But there are still politicians who advocate for its return. While the media portrays the opponents of the Fairness Doctrine as irrational fear mongers, this ignores the substance of the bill itself.
First of all, the point of having the freedom of speech is TO hear opposing viewpoints; why impose government mandates on something that already exists? In a melting pot like the United States, there are millions of different opinions and voices. Radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz exist and remain in popularity for the same reason people tune into Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC; they want that political slant. Liberals want to hear liberal personalities, and conservatives want to hear conservative personalities. While we would all agree that it is good to be exposed to differing points of view, there is no benefit in having some views forced upon us at the expense of others in the name of fairness. I take the time to listen to the SiriusLeft station on my satellite radio, not because I have to but because I want to. I think there are many people like me who enjoy listening to what they don’t agree with, and for that reason the Fairness Doctrine is pointless. Furthermore, government would be overstepping its bounds in telling broadcasters what they can and cannot say on their own programs.
My second point is, who is at liberty to decide what is “reasonable” but each individual? As mentioned, there are millions of different opinions in a society. No one opinion is exactly the same as the next, so what constitutes reasonable contrasting viewpoints?
Although it is mostly democrats that are in favor of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, liberal Alan Colmes formerly of Fox’s Hannity & Colmes strongly opposes it. In an interview with Brian Jennings, Colmes said, “There is a better way than the Fairness Doctrine if increasing viewpoints is the goal. Diversity in ownership. Government should not be involved in programming content. But what government can do is discourage monopolies and make sure there are limits as to how much of the public airwaves can be controlled by one entity in a given market.”
Under the Fairness Doctrine, broadcasters avoided controversy for fear of reprisal by the government. Programs were poorly rated and failed to generate revenue. British-Indian novelist Salman Rushdie put it best in these words: Without the freedom to offend, freedom of expression ceases to exist.

In case you couldn't tell -- my nervousness may have overshadowed it because I do so hate speaking in front of crowds -- I am very much an opponent of this bill.
I found it odd that the negative side made fun of my bringing up the subject of freedom of speech, because to me, that is exactly what this issue is about. What about it has nothing to do with infringing on that right? Opinions!

Snaaaaaaaaake Snaaaaaaaaaake!

Ignore the title if you don't get the reference ;p
Snake is back and comments are working! Hurray! Been searching DrudgeReport for something to blog about but nothing is striking me. Hopefully in a little while. So this post is pointless and just to let everyone know that I got the layout and comments to cooperate with each other.

HTML Troubles

If you were having problems posting comments to my posts, the problem has been fixed. Seemed there was something I missed in the layout I was using. So the awesome snake is gone until I can figure out how to fix it. Sigh. Hope to see some comments now, I was wondering what was up. Thanks for your patience :)

Lying By Omission?

I started this post and discontinued it several times. Mostly because I couldn't find a good article to post as a source, but I think the issue is very relevant to class, so I'll try again.
MSNBC showed a clip of a close-up of a gun on a man's back, not showing the man's face. The anchors then stated that it was white racists who were bringing guns to the rally. It was later learned that the man they were showing was black. I wanted an article or video that gave the story straight up, but since it was opponents who called out MSNBC, of course there are no straight news stories. So here it is as unbiased as I could find it. There's a bunch of gibberish at the end about merchandise, so the story really ends at about 1:00 into the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfGF-wI6KUw

I would really like to hear others' thoughts on this. As I said in my first post, it is up to the individual to decide what his opinions are. All the media can do is present facts. However, I'm conflicted in this particular story. Had I seen the story before it were exposed, would I have swallowed what the anchors said about racism having anything to do with firearms? No. I honestly would not have paid much attention to it. And I as I said in the beginning of the post, most of the videos and articles I found exposing the race of the man were spun with opinions. That's not a bad thing, but for the class, I just wanted a straight news story.
So, should MSNBC take the heat for this? Or should they be free to tell a story however they wish?

Why I Don't Like Stephen Colbert

I do realize I am in the minority amongst my age group when it comes to my opinion of comedian Stephen Colbert. That's okay with me. I'm not into 'mob rule', remember ;p He has a cultlike following that startles me a little. I try to stay away from cults (okay, that's not entirely true -- Fight Club, anyone?).
Now before I get accused of having no sense of humor or not being able to laugh at myself, nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, I'm probably one of my favorite things to make fun of. I think what bothers me about Colbert is that he strikes me as a pseudo-intellectual -- someone who thinks he knows a lot more than he actually does. I understand who he's making fun of. I undertstand the routine; I just find it rather whiny. And yes, as I said in my last post, people like slants, whether they admit it or not. I do not agree with Colbert's points of views, so that is a big reason why I don't watch him. Not to say I'm exactly fans of the people he makes fun of either. A lot of the political pundits he makes fun of (Bill O'Reilly in particular comes to mind) really are just doofuses. But I think he is rather closed-minded and makes generalizations when it comes to his views of the opposing side.
Unlike his couterpart (and coattails provider) Jon Stewart, he tries to be more of a political pundit than a comedian. Sometimes I can laugh at Jon Stewart. I remember a particular instance during the 2004 elections, Teresa Heinz (John Kerry's wife), made a speech during the DNC I think it was, in which she greeted everyone in different languages. Jon Stewart commenatated with, "And now to our dolphin friends," followed by dolphin-like shrieks and flapping his hands like fins. That's funny. I like his comedy, sometimes. I'm by no means a huge Stewart fan, but I can laugh at him, whereas I find myself just rolling my eyes at Colbert.
With that said, I admire anyone who makes himself successful. There's obviously something people like about him, what with all the "Colbert '08" bumper stickers I saw last year. I know a lot of people go directly to him as their news source, and while I don't understand it, I think it says something. So that's that on that, comments are welcome and appreciated :)

Mass Media and Politics

For some reason, my body has decided 4 AM is a perfect time to be awake, so I suppose it's as good a time as any to get started on my blog.
The first thing I will say, because I know I wonder this about everyone I meet, is that my political affiliation, in terms of parties, is libertarian (not to be confused with "liberal" -- I have had that happen a lot). However I prefer the term minarchist. Basically, less government is better government.
Well, this class is called "Mass Media and Politics", so I suppose that's a good place to start. During our last class meeting, we had a debate on the mass media doing an effective job serving the needs of the American political democratic system. What I found the most interesting is what took place in my own head. I originally was not sure where I stood on the issue, though I leaned more towards the negative. I joined the "affirmative" side, hoping to form more of an opinion and also because I rarely join the side I disagree with (I find that professors are always encouraging us to join the side we disagree the most with). By the end of the class, after hearing all of the arguments, I was definitely leaning more towards the affirmative, not because I think the media are praiseworthy or perfect, but because I think there's only so much that it can do, and that people really just like to complain too much. However, I was not crazy about the topic or the wording of it to begin with.
The first thing I have a problem with is "democratic". A democracy, to me, means mob rule. I do not believe that mob rule is an effective way to govern, nor do I think the United States was ever intended as a democracy. I believe, at the heart, America is a republic. The difference between a democracy and a republic, as I said, is the way the majority is controlled. In a democracy, the majority have the power. In a republic, power lies within the individual.
I also hear a lot of people complain that the media is biased. Well, which media are you referring to? News is news. The president made a speech today. That's news. It is a fact, and there is no way to slant or bias that fact. What an individual thinks of that speech, however, is up to the individual. One particular reporter may elaborate his thoughts on the speech, but that is not a bias in the news or leaving out facts. It is up to the viewer to decide what he thinks for himself. Biases stay in business because that's what people want; I listen to Neal Boortz so I can talk to the radio and say things like, "Yes! Exactly!" On the other hand, I watch Rachel Maddow so I can shake my head and also, so I can know what I'm arguing against. If you only listen to one side, how are you to know what you're even disagreeing with? So while some sources have bias, I believe that is a good thing. I like people with opinions. I like to hear others opinions, so I don't stay closed up in my own little box thinking my opinions are the only ones.
So in short, you can't bias the facts. What you can do is think for yourself. A little slant is good here and there.
If this wasn't coherent, I apologize; it's almost 5 AM. My body hates me.

About the flag in the background: you will see it with me everywhere. It's called the Gadsden flag. Look it up ;)

Testing, testing

Testing fonts, will probably delete this in a minute.