|
|
Archive for the ‘United States Politics’ Category
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010
As I was thinking about President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address that we will all be listening to tonight, I couldn’t help but become a little bit frustrated by what we will all hear after the State of the Union – the spin doctors. It really aggravates me that in 2010 we will have to be subjected to two completely different “fact-based” opinions on what the President said during his Address. What also bothers me is that every single Democrat or left-leaning media person will praise Obama like he’s the Second Coming (like they did during the election cycle) and every single Republican or right-leaning media person will decry his Address saying that he completely missed the point.
Frankly, in 2010 in America – that’s disgusting.
I’ll be watching the speech on FOX News and probably listening to their post-Address wrap up and thoughts. The reason why I choose FOX News is because they will at least bring on both Democrats and Republicans to give their points of view. While their standard slate of commentators (note – commentators) tend to lean to the right on most issues, at least I know that by watching FOX News I’ll be able to hear both sides of the story and that I’ll have a greater chance of getting a news person acting as a fair and impartial arbiter of the discussion. You can’t find that on MSNBC or CNN (though CNN has come a long way).
As for the speech itself, let me turn to the Asbury Park Press which published an article today that said the following:
It has been widely reported that Obama will announce programs aimed at the middle class on issues such as student loans. However, those measures will have limited appeal if unemployment remains high.
“He can do all he wants on college loans. But for those in dire straits, he has to go farther,” Greenberg said.
FYI – David Greenberg is an associate professor of history at Rutgers University. I’m interested to hear what Obama has to say about student loans. Those of you who frequent this blog know that I write about my student loans – a lot (see yesterday’s post). While I have created a plan of my own to repay this debt, by doing so I am effectively taking myself out of the for-sale housing market for the next two years.
Now, a few years ago I would say that I was an extreme example of how student loan debt could possibly hurt and stifle the middle class economy. Today, however, I think there are a lot more people in my situation (albeit at lower dollar amounts) than people may think. Sure, one guy in New Jersey who is handcuffed by six figure student loans is an extreme example of how one person can’t contribute to the economy’s recover…but when you multiply that times let’s say one person in each state, you now have 50 people that aren’t contributing. Then when you consider that there might be 10 people in each state in this situation (a likely figure), now you’re at 500 people that have good paying jobs, but cannot contribute to the economic rebound. Up that to maybe 1,000 people per state (again, not unreasonable when you consider the total population) and now you have 50,000 people not participating.
Simple math: 50,000 people x $250,000 (cost of each person buying one home) = $12,500,000,000 in new home sales
That’s a lot of zeroes, huh? And those are just numbers that I’m pulling out of the air. I’m confident that there are more than 50,000 college graduates who are stifled by their student loan debt and I’m sure that people would be buying more/other things besides new homes – like new cars, clothing, electronics, etc.
Also from the Asbury Park Press:
Recent Republican victories have been attributed in part to economic issues, with unemployment in double digits.
“The challenge is to frame a policy to create jobs, while cutting the deficit,” said Joseph Patten, an associate professor of political science at Monmouth University.
“Traditionally, you stimulate the economy by spending more. It’s difficult to do that when you have a spending freeze,” Patten said.
I had to include Dr. Patten in this entry because he used to be one of my Professors at Monmouth and the guy knows what he’s talking about. I wouldn’t want the task set before President Obama – find a way to generate new jobs while cutting the deficit and still finding a way to appease your ultra-liberal base by spending more money on more programs. Good grief!
Let’s see what Obama has to say tonight.
Posted in Student Loans, United States Politics | No Comments »
Friday, January 22nd, 2010
One of my friends up in Massachusetts was kind enough to put together some post-election observations regarding how regular Massachusetts citizens have responded to Scott Brown’s absolutely stunning Senatorial election win in the Bay State. Take a read of his observations below:
You probably didn’t hear this on the news, and I thought you might be interested.
Some of the Scott Brown campaign signs read “Black Friday, White Christmas, Brown Tuesday” referring to the January 19 vote.
Some of the local media and papers referred to the day he passed his challenger in the polls and the subsequent momentum as the “Brownout”.
There were many disaffected Democrats who referred to themselves as “Brown Democrats“ (borrowing from the 1980’s mantra “Reagan Democrats”) when interviewed, or when gathering.
On January 20, without any organization that I am aware of, many people wore some piece of brown colored clothing in tribute to Scott Brown’s win. I saw many folks at my work in Cambridge (of all places) doing this and they admitted to it when asked- none of them said it was due to some notice on a website or concerted effort.
The most interesting (and indulge my explanation): A mid 2000’s TV show called ‘Firefly’ (sci-fi) featured army soldiers called ‘Browncoats’. For a while, you could buy brown colored T-shirts with the word ‘Browncoats’ on the front, and on the back there was a quote on it from the star of the show, “I aim to misbehave.” I saw someone wearing one of these T shirts in tribute 9by their admission) to Scott Brown.
How great is that? People wearing brown on January 20th without any concerted effort? That’s awesome! That is what happens when people are excited about a major event.
Let’s hope that Scott Brown can make the rest of the nation as excited as he’s made our countrymen up in Massachusetts!
Posted in United States Politics | No Comments »
Friday, November 20th, 2009
Every once in a while I receive a forwarded e-mail that either makes me laugh out loud or makes me smile at the overall point of the message. I received one of those e-mails this morning from a friend of mine who happens to be a town councilman. Take a read for yourself:
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan.” All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Anyway, I got a kick out of that really direct message on one person’s take of Obama’s economic plan. Enjoy!
Posted in Jokes & Humor, United States Politics | No Comments »
Saturday, November 7th, 2009
At some point last year I began doing some preliminary analysis of election results, specifically looking at third parties and how they perform through the scope of small town election results. In other words, if you start the “Bob’s Political Party” and you put yourself on the statewide or national ballet, how many votes might you receive in a small town? Hey, it interests me, okay?!
In any event, last year I put myself on the mailing list for the Constitution Party. This party, as I understand it, supports a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution. Frankly, as an Adjunct Professor of Political Science I can certainly appreciate the fact that not many people in our society understand the basics of the Constitution nor the powers or limitations of our federal style of government.
Back up for a moment – I’ve also spent some time considering the words that politicians use in their campaigns and what the reality of their campaign promises mean through the vernacular of their campaign rhetoric. For example, then-Senator Barack Obama campaigned to be the President of the United States by making a lot of promises – some of which he simply could not fulfill. Obama promised that taxes would not go up “one dime” for anyone making less than $250,000 per year. Well, that’s not something that Obama can promise because in our system of government the President does not unilaterally make tax policy. More properly stated, Obama should have said, “I pledge to work with Congress and push a policy of not raising taxes on anyone making under $250,000.” However, who wants to hear a promise of “trying” to push a certain policy once elected? Exactly…
But words are interesting in politics and as someone who has been tangentially monitoring the Constitution Party over the last year, I find the survey on their site to be worthy of an entry on this blog. By the way, you can read (and take) the survey by clicking here. What do I find so interesting about it? Well, click on that link and take the survey.
Notice anything? How about the style in which the questions are written? Look at this question:
The undercutting of our free market system, begun by Republicans and accelerated by President Obama, has resulted in near government ownership of too many banks and industries. Do you agree that the Constitution Party (CP) should remain steadfast in opposing both parties’ push for more federal control over our financial sectors and businesses?
For those of you who study this type of stuff (i.e. communication), I’m sure you’re loving this question right now! How about that first sentence? Why not say, “This is what the Constitution Party believes about this particular issue and we’re going to ask you to agree with us in the next sentence, okay?” Honestly, this is a little bit disappointing from a third party that I think has some potential at the local and regional level of politics.
From what I’ve gathered, the Constitution Party is trying to present a real alternative to those in the Republican and Democratic parties who expect this country to be operated as the Constitution dictates that it must. That’s an honorable goal – especially in today’s hyper-partisan political climate where both the Republicans and the Democrats use interpretations of interpretations of interpretations of clauses in the Constitution as the base of their domestic and foreign policies. But where the Constitution Party does itself no good is to put up a “survey” that is packed with leading questions. Not a good strategy.
A better strategy for the Constitution Party would be to go to the 23rd District of New York and set-up camp. This is a district that provided 45.2% of the vote to a Conservative Party candidate. Imagine if the Constitution Party could legitimize itself to the voters in the 23rd District and make a real showing in future elections? Better yet, a good strategy for this party might be to recruit well-known candidates to run for office at the local level and build on local success. It’s almost like building a new business – you don’t just open up 50 Wal-Mart-sized stores in 50 states and expect them to be successful tomorrow. You need to build a brand.
But building that brand should not include time wasted on self-aggrandizing surveys.
Posted in United States Politics | No Comments »
Monday, October 26th, 2009
As the New Jersey gubernatorial race begins to head towards the finish line, those of us who are voters in New Jersey also see a light at the end of this horrid tunnel that we endure every few years. That horrid tunnel, more commonly known as the gubernatorial election, is marred with dirty politics, constant attack ads, and (at least this time around) a striking lack of specifics for both the Republican and Democrat candidates.
Both Governor Jon Corzine and Chris Christie’s remarkable inability to give specific information on the details of their supposed plans to lower property taxes have left a filthy taste in the mouth of many New Jersey voters. All one needs to do is listen to any of the debates that these candidates have had over the last several weeks and you’ll be sick to your stomach.
Since I’m a glutton for punishment, I decided to listen to WBGO’s podcast of the last gubernatorial debate of this season, which occurred at their studios last Thursday. Hold on to your hats for this shocking revelation… it was more of the same! In fact, you can read a review of the debate from the mainstream media’s point of view at the New York Times website by clicking here.
The last few weeks of this year’s election cycle have been interesting as the Independent candidate Chris Daggett is gaining in the polls to the greater detriment of Christie, but now also to the detriment of Corzine. Much like what is going on in New York’s 23rd Congressional district, it appears that a third party candidate is going to spoil the New Jersey Governor’s race. Frankly, I’m glad that Daggett has decided to stay in the race and fight. New Jersey, and the entire nation, needs an alternative to the Republicans and the Democrats.
Posted in The State of New Jersey, United States Politics | No Comments »
Friday, October 23rd, 2009
Unless you don’t watch television news, I’m sure you’ve been keeping somewhat of an eye on the battle started by the White House against FOX News. The folks in the White House have suggested that FOX News isn’t a real news outlet and they’ve even begun to cut them out of interview opportunities. The New York Times ran an article on this struggle this morning which does a great job of covering what, exactly, the White House’s beef is and the FOX News response.
There is a lot to write about this particular issue. I could write about how one of my liberal professors is touting the White House’s opposition to FOX News strictly on ideological grounds. One could also write about how Chris Wallace from FOX News Sunday hit the nail directly on the head when he suggested that this White House is filled with a bunch of crybabies. Or one could write about how other news stations are sticking up for FOX. In fact, directly from that New York Times article comes this:
In a sign of discomfort with the White House stance, Fox’s television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Tuesday to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg that was to be conducted with a “pool” camera crew shared by all the networks. That followed a pointed question at a White House briefing this week by Jake Tapper, an ABC News correspondent, about the administration’s treatment of “one of our sister organizations.”
Pretty respectable for the competition to honor the unfair treatment that FOX News has been receiving, huh?
However, I want to focus on two things regarding this issue – the White House’s intentional blur between what is news and what is opinion on FOX News and the game that the White House is playing with FOX News.
First, anyone who studies media or watches a great deal of CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News while reading a diversity of newspapers can tell you that there are only so many ways a company can report a story. When a tornado hits Kansas, you don’t often hear FOX News reporters saying, “A tornado hit Kansas today and the lousy liberals are to blame.” Just like you don’t hear any legitimate reporter on MSNBC blaming conservatives for acts of God. When it comes down to reporting events from around the world, you’re going to read or watch the same report no matter where you go.
However, when it comes to commentary, you’re going to get a divergent approach to “reporting.” Bill O’Reilly calls himself a “humble correspondent.” That’s part of his approach to opinion journalism and there is nothing wrong with that at all! O’Reilly takes a very traditional view on the issues, but that’s okay because he’s hosting a program that is rooted in commentary. Glenn Beck has a staunchly libertarian point of view. Now, those who are not well-versed in political ideology would suggest that Beck is a conservative, but he’s not. So the next time you hear a mass media report or read in a newspaper that Beck is a conservative, then you need to second guess that source of news. Sean Hannity, on the other hand, is a hardcore conservative and there’s nothing wrong with that, either.
FOX News clearly labels these programs as commentary and anyone who knows anything about social interaction beyond “Hello, my name is…” can tell that these programs are NOT news-based! The White House isn’t filled with dummies, they understand that these programs are opinion programs. However, their strategy is to lump the legitimate news departments in with these opinion programs to paint FOX News with a broad, anti-liberal, anti-Obama brush. They know that by doing this, there will be a certain percentage of the population that completely agrees with them and will eventually take over this fight now that it has been brought up at a higher level. It’s a shame that such easily influenced, non-critical thinking people exist to do the White House’s prolonged dirty work.
My second point is that the White House actually managed to do something that they hadn’t been able to do up until they began attacking FOX News, i.e. get the FOX News commentators to STOP digging into the backgrounds of Obama’s staff. Think about it. Glenn Beck single-handedly led to Van Jones’ downfall, which opened up the door for other media organizations to wonder what they had missed out on (read the New York Times article linked above). This, frankly, scared the hell out of the White House and led to them attacking FOX News. If the media is covering itself, then they’re NOT digging into the people who maybe shouldn’t be sitting around the table with the President, right?
Hopefully, people will begin to notice this on a large scale and begin to demand that their White House stop engaging in partisan attacks on the media and, instead, get back to the job of running this country.
Posted in United States Politics | No Comments »
|
|
|
| |
|
