A Response to "The Fight On H.I.V/AIDS continues."

The Chaos That is Our Government brought something to my attention. It never occurred to me that the Democratic candidates were making the fights against HIV and AIDS as part of their political agenda. Upon finding it out on her, blog, I'm glad to know that they are. The HIV and AIDS pandemic is such an important social issue right now because it's so fatal and, more importantly, so incredibly common. It's crucial that we find a cure or at least a way to slow it down as soon as possible. I too hope that Hillary or whoever ends up in the White House will make this issue one of their priorities.

The mass media - cause of voter's apathy?

It seems as if voters are getting more and more apathetic with each election that passes, and in my opinion, the underlying cause is the media. There is constant coverage regarding the presidential election and the candidates, and as the primaries and the actual Election Day gets closer, it’s only going to get worse. Of course, it’s important that voters are informed when the day comes to make a choice, but there comes a point when it’s just too much. Do we really need to know about the candidates’ food choices while campaigning in each city (courtesy of The New York Times)? Do we really have to see videos and ads of the candidates while browsing YouTube and Facebook? The media overwhelms us with coverage and is taking substance away from our leisure activity, causing many to avoid it, not pay attention, lose interest, or even despise it.

With all the media coverage candidates are getting, they are getting more and more guarded of their actions and words, afraid that they might slip up and lose voters. They are no longer comfortable with speaking freely on their beliefs and stance on certain topics, knowing that what they say will be heard by nearly everyone in the nation, since computers and TVs are so easily accessible nowadays. Trying to please as many people as they can and offend as little as possible, candidates will most likely act and speak as their voters would like them to. They promise one thing and do the complete opposite when the opportunity arises. One only needs to look at the Congress, where Democrats are in the majority. They promised to have a solution to many issues, most importantly the war. They promised, if given the chance, they would put a halt to it as soon as possible. Only now are they beginning to force President Bush into considering withdrawing the troops.

With all this press and coverage that only shows candidates of lying and making false promises, how can one get excited about voting? How can we know that who we vote on will lead our country into a different direction than it is now?

A response to "How the media has ruined Halloween"

Herdeman's Political Page contains a great and unique commentary. It had never occurred to me that the dangers of Halloween shifted from razors hidden in apples to kidnappers and rapists. My mom's biggest fear when I was younger was that the candy would be tainted, but it never prevented me from going door to door and having fun. With today's fears, many children are probably missing out from the joy of walking around with your friends at night and watching your bag fill up with delicious candy. To me, Halloween is like an American pastime. No other countries that I know of celebrate Halloween the way we do, and it’s a pity that more and more children are unable to celebrate in this unique culture of ours.

I completely agree with you when it comes to the media’s portrayal of sex offenders. They love to give interesting and exciting news, and nothing is more interesting than the prospect of a child, or any other person, getting kidnapped and raped. Whether we like to admit it or not, it holds our attention and piques our interest more than most other news stories. I, myself, am guilty of this too. One of my favorite television shows is “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit”. The show is based around people, mostly women and children, being sexually abused. It’s a depressing and dark show at times, but it’s one of the most interesting shows on television right now.

I believe the issue runs deeper than with merely Halloween. Just today, I heard a report that one in five children (or something similarly ridiculous) are not allowed outside because their parents are too afraid of what’s out there. This is obviously the media’s fault with their coverage of all the dangers in the world. In the wise words of a government professor, “the media can’t tell you how to think, but rather what to think about”.

Source: How the media has ruined Halloween

An Attack on Clinton

There was another Democratic debate last night, and one theme seemed clear throughout it: pick on Hillary Clinton instead of defending your own political beliefs and views.

Both Barack Obama and John Edwards were given a chance to make an opening statement and both used it to take a shot at Clinton, with Obama saying, “I think what we need right now is honesty with the American people about where we would take the country” and Edwards saying, “I think it is crucial for Democratic voters and caucus-goers to determine who they can trust, who’s honest, who is sincere, who has integrity”. Sure, both statements can be considered as a general one regarding their own political standpoint, but it is fairly easy to jump to the conclusion that they were aimed towards Clinton’s character flaws. Statements of this nature are used throughout the debate, so much so that Bill Richardson declares, “You know what I’m hearing here? I’m hearing this holier-than-thou attitude toward Senator Clinton. That it’s bothering me because it’s pretty close to personal attacks that we don’t need.”

The gang up was even evident with the moderator Tim Russert. He asked the candidates to pledge that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons while on their watch. Clinton pledged to “do everything I can” to prevent Iran from doing so, causing Russert to point out that it wasn’t a real pledge. She just reiterated the fact that she would try her hardest. Obama and Edwards both made “pledges” of the same degree, never fully promising that Iran would not do so if they were president, but they were not called out for their lack of pledge. Moderators are supposed to be unbiased, aren’t they?

Televised debates are possibly the most mainstream way of a candidate getting their policies across to the nation. It is the easiest way for them to gain, as well as lose, supporters. It should be taken advantage of to further their prospects of winning their caucus and eventually the election next year. Barack Obama and John Edwards both chose to put down the leading candidate instead of trying to bring themselves up to the forefront. It seems like a good strategy, but in retrospect, it is the cowardly and easy way out, because it is much easier to put someone down than to praise yourself.

The Trivial Pursuit

This editorial by Bob Hebert is written in response to Al Gore’s recent Nobel Peace Prize win. He praises Gore for being “one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, talented men in America and remarkably well-equipped to lead the nation”, then goes on to criticize President Bush and former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

Hebert mentions that although President Bush showed many vulnerabilities in 2000, “it was not him but Mr. Gore who was mocked unmercifully by the national media”. Gore, indeed, was ridiculed for his lack of style and his sighing and alleged eye-rolling while on tv. Everyone believed that he didn’t have the “look” necessary to be leader of the free world. According to Hebert, “we’ve paid a heavy price”. He writes that although Bush “looks” like a model president, he “doesn’t seem to know up from down”. Hebert mentions some of Bush’s failures, such as “blithely [steering] the nation into a bottomless pit of debt”. The nation definitely should’ve chosen the president that would’ve helped the nation instead of choosing the one that looks like he would.

Hebert then swiftly moves on to criticizing Giuliani. Hebert believes that the basis for Giuliani’s presidential candidacy is due to “ his contention that he is some kind of expert, a veritable guru, on matters related to terrorism”, something that Hebert calls Giuliani out for by mentioning two instances:

"Mr. Giuliani foolishly insisted, against expert advice, on placing New York City’s state-of-the-art emergency command center on the 27th floor of a 47-story building that was known to be a terror target and that was destroyed in the World Trade Center attack.
And he pushed hard for the corrupt and grotesquely underqualified Bernard Kerik to be appointed to the top antiterror post in the Bush administration, secretary of homeland security."

It’s obvious that Giuliani is not adept enough to guide this country away from terrorist attacks. If this is his specialty, a specialty that he has shown to have failed at, then how can he be able to guide the country regarding other issues?

Hopefully, in the upcoming election, the nation disregards every insignificant details of a candidate and elects a president proficient enough to pull the country out of the slump that our very own President has pushed us into.

Source: NY Times

Congress Takes On MoveOn

An editorial from the LA Times put into light of how biased and hypocritical the two political parties are in regards to criticizing the other party. It starts out by mentioning the MoveOn.org’s full page ad in the New York Times in September, which stated in big, bold letters, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”. The author then compared it to the “far more egregious” Swift boat ads directed at Senator Kerry during the 2004 presidential election. Many politicians criticized the ads which made “unsubstantiated allegations that besmirched Kerry's Vietnam War record”, but nothing more was done about it. However, at the end of last month, “the House condemned MoveOn's Petraeus ad by a 341-79 vote, a week after the Senate did the same by a vote of 72 to 25”. This shows the double-standard and hypocritical world that politics live in. A commercial paid for by the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, a political group consisting of Vietnam War veterans, that accuses a fellow Vietnam war veteran and presidential candidate of numerous allegations shown throughout the country? Let’s just slap them on the wrist. A fairly harmless ad in the newspaper that suggests that we have been betrayed by the General that is overseeing the Iraq war? Let’s take it to Congress and have an official condemnation. The reactions are completely fair... right?

More proof is given in the editorial by showing the responses of each party. Liberals were quick to point out that the condemnation shows evidence of double standards, but the Democrats were the ones who created the 527 groups, which consists of both the MoveOn and Swift Vets and POWs for Truth groups, so as to not inhibit campaign donations. Senator Clinton criticized President Bush for not condemning the Swift boat ads, but she herself voted “no” to condemning the same ads. Lastly, President Bush, who didn’t even comment on the Swift boat ads until after they stopped airing, criticized the Democrats for not condemning the Petraeus ads. Criticism is spit out left and right by one party towards the other. Each party turns a blind eye towards their own hypocritical actions. All of this is as innate as breathing.

The last paragraph of this editorial eloquently sums up this problem: “The message here is that sleazy political ads are OK as long as they're on your side, but otherwise they're unacceptable. We've got a different message for Congress: Instead of wasting time on this kind of meaningless political theater, how about solving the nation's healthcare crisis or doing something to fight global warming?”

Source: LA Times

Clinton Announces Healthcare Policy

This article from the LA Times is about Hilary Clinton’s proposal for a universal healthcare policy, a topic that she rallied for but failed at getting passed during President Bill Clinton’s time in office. To help the approximately 47 million people who are without insurance, Clinton calls for a requirement for businesses to offer employee insurance or contribute to a government pool that would help cover the unemployed. For the smaller businesses, she would offer a tax subsidy that would help them cover their employees. She also wanted to stop some of the tax cuts given by President Bush to those who make more than $250,000 a year to help the government cover those who are unable to pay for the high cost of insurance. Clinton states that this plan will cost the government about $110 billion a year but promises that this is not a government-run policy. This plan has drawn criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike, most of which having to do with the time it would take for her policy to fully succeed.

This is worth reading because this topic may possibly make or break Clinton’s campaign for the 2008 Presidential Elections. It also affects every single one of us because we should decide beforehand whether higher taxes compensates for a promise of health insurance.

Source: LA Times