I was talking with a friend today and he brought up an interesting thought. The idea is that almost everything in our everyday lives has become political. Example, someone who ones an ipod is more liberal than someone who bought their mp3 player at walmart. Where you drink your coffee, or where you eat. if you eat here you are this and if you eat that you are something else.
so is this really true? is this really going on? and if so is it healthy or unhealthy for a society?
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Obama and Fox news
This is what obama said about fox news on an cnbc show, “I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration…That’s a pretty big megaphone. You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front,” However, is that not what the press is suppose to do? I'm not one for saying fox news is the greatest. In fact they failed to do their job when bush was in office. But the press is suppose to ask the tough questions and look at everything the government does with a questionable eye. And for a president to attack a whole news network seems a little odd to me. obama added this saying, "I think that actually the reason people have been generally positive about what we’ve been trying to do is people feel as if I’m available and willing to answer questions and we haven’t been trying to hide the ball.” Really? obama won't even go on the fox news, so that's really not open. Plus the press asked if they could see the visitor list of the white house, but obama said no, just like bush did. Even obama believes the press has been "generally positive" towards him. I understand that maybe he doesn't want to give any credit to fox news, so that is why he doesn't want to be on their network. But one has to stop and think for a second, bush wasn't doing a very good job so he could stand the press, because the press was all over him. so if the government doesn't like the press then that means the press must be doing something right.
I grow nervous about hos the president believes the press is "generally positive" towards him. that makes me think the press isn't doing their job.
I grow nervous about hos the president believes the press is "generally positive" towards him. that makes me think the press isn't doing their job.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
ABC is a tool
ABC news on June 24 is doing a medical care special at the white house. AT the white house. The press is there to question and to investigate the government for the People, not to be used as a launch pad for the president's agenda. This is bad, this is very bad.
"ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: President Obama’s health care push will continue next week with a primetime event at the White House, with ABC’s Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer".
Noticed how it says "Obama's health care PUSH". It is clear that ABC is letting obama use their airwaves and their time to push his agenda. That isn't freedom of press, that is a president in control of the press.
"The special edition of “Primetime” will air from the White House on Wednesday, June 24, at 10 pm ET. “Good Morning America,” “World News,” “Nightline,” and ABCNews.com’s “Top Line” will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda."
All these "special programming" will be on the "president's AGENDA". The special edition at night is not the only outlet ABC is giving obama that day. Obama is going to be interviewed on GMA,
"Wednesday morning’s “Good Morning America” will originate from the South Lawn of the White House and will include an exclusive interview with President Obama. He sits down with Diane Sawyer to discuss healthcare and other issues on the nation’s agenda. Wednesday’s program will also feature portions of Robin Roberts’ exclusive interview with First Lady Michelle Obama."
This is insane! How could ABC sell itself out to the government when it is supposed to be watching the government. That is why I propose a boycott of ABC on Wednesday, June 24! this isn't an attack on ABC or an attack on obama or even against the debate of medical care, this is about the idea of freedom of press. We must not let Our press be run by the government.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
nationalism v. internationalism
Linda Milazzo wrote this in a blog post from huffinton post, "This evening at a Washington DC fundraiser, in a statement that can best be described as regressive American exceptionalism, former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich said of himself:
"I am not a citizen of the world. I think the entire concept is intellectual nonsense and stunningly dangerous!" She then goes on to say, "Mr. Gingrich's...defines in two simple sentences the elitism, racism and egotism that have destroyed his Republican Party".
I don't see the racism in the statement by Gingrich? The reason she said that, I believe, is she thinks that calling yourself a citizen not of the world but of a country is racist to other nations. But that's not racism, that's nationalism.
But I think she has it all flipped around. An internationalist from America, who says things like, "To me being a citizen of the World means that I put the well-being of all peoples (regardless of Nationality) above my selfish desires. I think their beliefs are that our morality is more important than material posessions", and "I don't think that we who call ourselves World Citizens mean that we want to be subject to an oppressive World Government. We mean that the tribal connections that we feel are to all the peoples in the world, and not those born into a certain geographical area", (got these from two posted comments of the blog) are missing the political implications of their position. I do not doubt that they care about other nations and want to help them, but the tools that are in place are controlled by a few, meaning the United States and Europe (but not as much anymore in the case of Europe). Comments by internationalists, I think, need to be careful not to cross over to "The White Man's Burden" syndrome. Because we are the most powerful nation in the world, we should be careful not to force our way of life upon weaker nations. By claiming we are all citizens of the world, what perception of a citizen should be pushed? Should the American style of citizen and American style of democracy be the model for which we impose upon other nations. In other words should we be American missionaries going off to other countries to spread the good word of Americanism (or even more to the point humanism, secularism, and universalism) By sending money to some foreign country to bring them our food and our medicine, and also our style of farming and our style of economics, do we not deteriorate their way of life? Are we not then egotistic and arrogant, thinking our way is better than their way (whoever they are)?
After WWII (sorry bringing up more history) The united states and allies, believed what went wrong in germany was that the people didn't really know how to run a democracy correctly, so the allies and the united states took it upon themselves to show them. the ussr did the same in east germany. through time you had west germany looking like the us and east germany looking like the ussr, but neither of them looked like germany (whatever that may have been, good or bad). Both the us and ussr were imperialistic, egotistic and arrogant that it was their system that was better, splitting up another nation and people. Should we do the same to nations in Africa? or china? of nations in South America? places that have had different histories, and different languages, and different beliefs, and different societies will create different governments and different customs. By claiming to be helping the world, we could be eliminating the peoples we claim to be helping.
Forgive my long rant and sermon (sorry about that, I found that this blog is a great way to get my thoughts down and also to hear your points-of-view. by hearing your thoughts it makes me keep checking my views and making sure they are more based on reason than opinion.) I am not for not helping other people in the world, don't get me wrong. (I said "not" three times in that sentence, sorry) But the tools we use (such as the UN, peace corp, military, G8-g20 summit hearings, world bank) are Western-American tools which can seem more like imposing our ways than helping. I think we should focus on helping the basic Natural Rights of every human, that is life, LIBERTY, and property. But even then our definitions of life, LIBERTY, and property should keep in mind the traditions of the individual peoples. This really is kind of hard. Do we go as far as to not help women, who have little to no rights (would we be imposing our views upon another culture?) before you jump and say, no; what if it was syria instead of the us that was the dominate force in the world, and syria opposed abortions and they sent their people to the us to stop abortion. An issue here in the us where we believe abortion is a right of the woman. To them they would be thinking they are helping our society. We don't want to fall into "the US knows best" mentality. I lean more towards, if there is something that is allowed in a culture that physically hurts a person without their consent then we should step in. But I would be very much interested in hearing what you think should be the limits (if any) on building this idea of We are all of the World? Am I missing the point here, in grouping World Citizen with American imperialism? How much should the US get involved in other nations? What issues do you see that surpass the national level and should reach no matter what to every human? the bold is there so if you don't want to read the whole super long post you still can see the questions asked.
"I am not a citizen of the world. I think the entire concept is intellectual nonsense and stunningly dangerous!" She then goes on to say, "Mr. Gingrich's...defines in two simple sentences the elitism, racism and egotism that have destroyed his Republican Party".
I don't see the racism in the statement by Gingrich? The reason she said that, I believe, is she thinks that calling yourself a citizen not of the world but of a country is racist to other nations. But that's not racism, that's nationalism.
But I think she has it all flipped around. An internationalist from America, who says things like, "To me being a citizen of the World means that I put the well-being of all peoples (regardless of Nationality) above my selfish desires. I think their beliefs are that our morality is more important than material posessions", and "I don't think that we who call ourselves World Citizens mean that we want to be subject to an oppressive World Government. We mean that the tribal connections that we feel are to all the peoples in the world, and not those born into a certain geographical area", (got these from two posted comments of the blog) are missing the political implications of their position. I do not doubt that they care about other nations and want to help them, but the tools that are in place are controlled by a few, meaning the United States and Europe (but not as much anymore in the case of Europe). Comments by internationalists, I think, need to be careful not to cross over to "The White Man's Burden" syndrome. Because we are the most powerful nation in the world, we should be careful not to force our way of life upon weaker nations. By claiming we are all citizens of the world, what perception of a citizen should be pushed? Should the American style of citizen and American style of democracy be the model for which we impose upon other nations. In other words should we be American missionaries going off to other countries to spread the good word of Americanism (or even more to the point humanism, secularism, and universalism) By sending money to some foreign country to bring them our food and our medicine, and also our style of farming and our style of economics, do we not deteriorate their way of life? Are we not then egotistic and arrogant, thinking our way is better than their way (whoever they are)?
After WWII (sorry bringing up more history) The united states and allies, believed what went wrong in germany was that the people didn't really know how to run a democracy correctly, so the allies and the united states took it upon themselves to show them. the ussr did the same in east germany. through time you had west germany looking like the us and east germany looking like the ussr, but neither of them looked like germany (whatever that may have been, good or bad). Both the us and ussr were imperialistic, egotistic and arrogant that it was their system that was better, splitting up another nation and people. Should we do the same to nations in Africa? or china? of nations in South America? places that have had different histories, and different languages, and different beliefs, and different societies will create different governments and different customs. By claiming to be helping the world, we could be eliminating the peoples we claim to be helping.
Forgive my long rant and sermon (sorry about that, I found that this blog is a great way to get my thoughts down and also to hear your points-of-view. by hearing your thoughts it makes me keep checking my views and making sure they are more based on reason than opinion.) I am not for not helping other people in the world, don't get me wrong. (I said "not" three times in that sentence, sorry) But the tools we use (such as the UN, peace corp, military, G8-g20 summit hearings, world bank) are Western-American tools which can seem more like imposing our ways than helping. I think we should focus on helping the basic Natural Rights of every human, that is life, LIBERTY, and property. But even then our definitions of life, LIBERTY, and property should keep in mind the traditions of the individual peoples. This really is kind of hard. Do we go as far as to not help women, who have little to no rights (would we be imposing our views upon another culture?) before you jump and say, no; what if it was syria instead of the us that was the dominate force in the world, and syria opposed abortions and they sent their people to the us to stop abortion. An issue here in the us where we believe abortion is a right of the woman. To them they would be thinking they are helping our society. We don't want to fall into "the US knows best" mentality. I lean more towards, if there is something that is allowed in a culture that physically hurts a person without their consent then we should step in. But I would be very much interested in hearing what you think should be the limits (if any) on building this idea of We are all of the World? Am I missing the point here, in grouping World Citizen with American imperialism? How much should the US get involved in other nations? What issues do you see that surpass the national level and should reach no matter what to every human? the bold is there so if you don't want to read the whole super long post you still can see the questions asked.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
education
i know we are in an economic problem, and there are wars all over the place, but what is congress and obama doing about education? Isn't education a huge issue and one that through time could solve a few of the issues of today? i just think education should kind of be a big issue that is always on the table.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)