Political Music

It seems to me that most songs influenced by politics often deal with times of war. Since the U.S. is currently involved in two wars there has been plenty of politically motivated song writing over the past decade. Political songs have traditionally usually been songs of protest, but that isn't always the case. The main thing songwriters want to do is to invoke emotion and thought in those listening to the song.
One song that would be considered more pro-war is "Courtesy of the red, white, and blue (the angry American)" by Toby Keith. This is probably the most popular and well-known song in support for the military and the war. This song came out shortly after 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, and at the time most people supported this effort. That probably helped contribute to its popularity, and at the time I think the war was undoubtedly justified. There was some controversy around it, but nothing too major at the time. The biggest criticism that this and other similar songs get is that people like Keith are trying to make money off of these events, but the same could be said about songs with the opposite message. I am no fan of Toby Keith, but  I will admit anytime I hear this song I can't help but sing along. It's just one of those songs.




Another song about war is the song "Road to Joy" written by Conor Oberst when he was a member of the band Bright Eye except the views and message of the is much different. 



This song and others by Oberst aren't very well-known even though Oberst was called a modern day Bob Dylan by Rolling Stone. Dylan is of course recognized by many music critics as one of the greatest songwriters ever. Anyway, this song takes a much different tone than that of Toby Keith's. Oberst is known to be anti-war, and this can be seen in some of his other works. This song is pretty deep, and at one point he even takes a bit of cynical stance because he feels like that even though people know what's going on that war will never cease to exist. You can hear this when he is talking about how modern man has invented the machine gun and the camera lens, and there is the line when he says, "When you're asked to fight a war that's over nothing, it's best to join the side that's going to win." That line was the one that really stuck out to me when I first heard the song. The song also takes a look at society, and then how America  will do whatever it takes "to win" a war.
There are my two songs that have a political influence. They each have a completely different message, but that I can't help from singing along anytime I hear either one. Let me know what you think of the songs maybe you have a different take on them. Or let me know of some similar songs that you enjoy.

The Greatest Trick The Devil Ever Pulled Was Convincing The World He Didn't Exist

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101119/ap_on_re_us/us_bernanke

We all know that the economy is still the biggest concern to most Americans, and people are constantly wondering what it will take to make America the thriving nation that it once was. Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve are doing their best to continue making people thinking that they are the way. The Fed has become way too powerful over the years, and that is especially true over the past decade. They have essentially become the fourth branch of government, and it is a completely unconstitutional entity. If you are unsure of what exactly the Fed does is print the money of the United States, and they also will conduct their own foreign policy with the U.S Dollar. You can look at the top of a dollar bill, and it will say Federal Reserve Note. More politicians and citizens are criticizing federal spending now more than ever before, but people need to ask how can the government spend so much. It is because the United States has a fiat monetary system where the Federal Reserve prints money so the government can expand to do what it wishes. However, they won't exactly just print the money always, but yes that is essentially what they do. This is why the deficit has grown so much. The U.S. government will sell U.S. treasury bonds to the Fed in exchange for U.S. dollars. That meaning one day the government must pay back the bonds with interest. Which is completely impossible because they print the money that we would use to pay back! This was seen last week when it was announced that the Fed was going to buy more treasury bonds, so that they can print $600 billion. This is plain and simple inflation, and the policy has and is inflationary which is not a good thing in the long run. The economic policy of America has to change, or the system is going to come crashing down worse than ever before.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul has been talking about this and seeking reform for years, but until recently he was outcast for suggesting such conspiratorial ideas. However, now more and more people are talking about it, and the Federal Reserve has become a mainstream issue. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is still saying that his way is the best way, and that more stimulus must happen.  Therefore, giving him more power and influence in the country and the world. A little over a year ago Rep. Ron Paul came out with his book End The Fed which discusses how the only way to make America the true representative for capitalism again is to abolish the Fed. Potentially the greatest victory for the free market is the fact that Ron Paul will probably become the chairman of the congressional sub committee on monetary policy next year when Republicans take back the House. Then Rep. Paul can subpoena Bernake to make him reveal what all the Fed has done, and he can make him bring his books to see what all the Fed has been doing with the dollar which in turn has devalued our currency. More people have to realize that the Fed has done much more damage than good, and that it has to be done away with. Thankfully, there are people like Congressman Paul, who really do believe in liberty, and there must be more like him.  The issue of central banks was something our founders fought against and warned about.
Here's a couple quotes by Thomas Jefferson:

"The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."

"A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army. ‘We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.’"

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/12/news/economy/Bernanke_Paul/index.htm

Bush Makes His Return

Most you have probably seen the bumper sticker or a picture of the billboard that said, "Miss Me Yet?" with a picture of George W. Bush, and most of us would more than likely reply with No. Just because the current president sucks doesn't mean the last one made America any better off. However, he was the still president so he does command a certain amount of respect. He has finished his book of memoirs, and it will be a bestseller which is understandable because he's lived a life that not very many people get to live. However, in this book he is also doing a bit of explaining and defending some topics and controversies of his time as president. We have already seen him go some talk shows to discuss the book, and to talk about some of these controversies. I've seen a couple of these interviews, and they are a bit interesting and entertaining. I didn't see him on Oprah, but I'm sure that had to be very interesting. I saw the Matt Lauer interview in its entirety, and then I watched Bush on Hannity. Of course Hannity gets an interview because he has defended and still defends Bush and his policies more than anybody else despite saying that Republicans lost their way which would have been Bush's way. That's beside the point because Hannity isn't in the business of making sense, and you can listen to his radio show or watch his TV show to see this. I don't expect Bush to recant on water boarding or Iraq, but nonetheless when he goes on some of these shows he will be put on the spot about these issues. On Lauer Bush defends his beliefs, but at the same time you know that he is avoiding getting into the topic too deep because he knows that certain things weren't popular and to most are morally wrong. The Hannity interview was a bit different. Bush didn't have to do to much avoiding because Hannity did that for him. He knows that his buddy, the former president, made a lot of not good decisions, so he did his best to avoid asking potentially damaging questions. It was sort of humorous there was one part in the interview where Hannity asked a questioned where it led to Bush ending up talking about something controversial, but then instead of Hannity making him answer for the things he did he told him, "Nevermind, you don't need to talk about that." So much for Hannity being a hard-hitting journalist. I don't understand why Hannity and other people get upset and talk about other networks being too liberal by giving Obama and other Democrats a pass by not asking hard hitting or the tough questions because they do the same for people on the other side of the aisle. The only way Fox News is fair and balanced is by balancing out the other side, and giving bias to conservatives/Republicans. Also, almost more people watch Fox than watch CNN and MSNBC combined, so I don't know why they care what those channels do. Anyway back to the Hannity interview, I can't remember what topic it was exactly that made Hannity withdraw the question, but I think he had something to do with either Katrina or possibly WMDs. I can't remember exactly, and I don't really want to watch the whole interview again. I'm sorry, but I'm sure most of you can understand this. My main point is that it was interesting to see the difference in the interviewers. Every TV journalists out there wants the chance to interview a former president. It is a very big deal. The wars and some other issues will go down as major events in American history, and it's good to see these top politicians put on the spot to answer for the things they did. Who knows maybe later on we'll be going to the theater to see Lauer/Bush.

Here is some of the Hannity/Bush interview. I'm not sure which part of the interview had Hannity take back his "tough" question. I would encourage you to watch both Bush on Hannity and Lauer in addition to the other places Bush will go and look at the difference in the interviews.

Repeal The 21st Amendment!

A study was released this past week saying alcohol is more dangerous than heroin and crack. So has the time come for the government to wake up and realize that people need to told how to act. Obviously, this substance is too dangerous for people handle properly. Therefore, it would be better if alcohol was once again banned, and we entered the second era of prohibition. This way all of the problems that come along with alcohol would go away just like all of the problems with drugs have ceased to exist. If you haven't guess by now I am being a bit sarcastic. However, it does make you think, or at least it made me think some. I'll start out by saying I don't get drunk, and I don't do drugs. I've decided that they serve no purpose for me in my life. I'm a christian, and being drunk or stoned isn't how I want to live, nor do I think it's how I should because it's not going to help me in my life. I think the world would be better if there weren't alcoholics or drug addicts, but the world is an imperfect place so the chances are slim. Now back to the main topic of alcohol being more dangerous than drugs. I understand that people having one or two drinks from time to time isn't going to cause much harm to society, but not all people know how to control themselves. Obviously the federal government isn't going to prohibit alcohol again because it caused more crime and problems than when it was illegal. The same is true today when it comes to the safer drugs and the war on drugs. I don't think you can just force people how to live their lives, and I don't think that the government should be regulating people's personal lives. I understand that more problems come from the prohibition of these substances, and that if these types things were legal and controlled. It's easier for kids in high school to get drugs because drug dealers don't ask for ID like a store does for alcohol. Then just when we thought California was going to legalize recreational use of marijuana the majority of Californians voted that the government can continue to tell people how to live their personal lives. I don't understand why the government will give people the benefit of the doubt on alcohol consumption, but not even on marijuana.  Maybe one day the time is going to come when governments will learn that the prohibition of these drugs is causing harm to society, and that it's more trouble and more of a waste of finances to keep up the war on drugs. Also I hate the argument people use that if drugs are legalized then there will be drug users walking around town because that argument just doesn't have any logic. Well they're illegal now, and people still use drugs.  I'm also a libertarian, and I think the government has to have less regulation in people's lives because that is the only way there can truly be a free society.

Here's an article discussing the study: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/01/alcohol-more-harmful-than-heroin-crack

Should We Be Afraid To Be Afraid?

There's the saying that says sex sells, but it has become quite evident that fear sells almost just as well. Much of the news involves conjuring up fear by using scare tactics. To a certain extent it is the media's job to inform people about certain dangers in society, but how much is too much. Also, how much research really goes into all of this reporting. Can it be possible that there's so many negative and dangerous things in the world? Things have to be cleaner and more sanitary and safer now than they were 100, 200, and even 1000 years ago, right? Also, you definitely have more scare stories than you have retracting stories saying something like, "Sorry, but apparently that thing we said could kill won't kill you." I was watching Stossel last week, and I was pretty surprised by some of the things that were discussed. Such as, there are more risky toxins in natural peanut butter than in artificial sweeteners. How are there  really such conflicting sides to things like this? There was also a later segment in the show that dealt with vaccines. Maybe the most astounding but not necessarily most surprising thing was that local TV news, broadcast and cable TV news are approximately 90% inaccurate when reporting on certain sciences and studies, and Wikipedia has been found to be more factually accurate. However, it does seem people have become somewhat immune to a lot of these types of stories because if people really believed everything they heard then I can imagine people would be scared to leave their house. Ironically they would also probably be terrified of all of the silent killers found in and around their home. I understand this type of reporting won't ever change, and it is important to some extent. However, it would be nice if there were some type of reasonableness restored to the media, or maybe at least we as viewers can become more cynical or care even less.

Also I know it has to be somewhat surprising that a show on a Fox network would have a show denouncing scare tactics in the media, but you got to give Stossel some credit for what he often reports on. He's not your average reporter, and I find his shows pretty interesting and fascinating.

Here's a link to his website where you can find other clips from this show and others.
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4393452/scare-tactics-of-media/

That Didn't Take Long

It took just about about as long for Fox News to offer Juan Williams a new and bigger contract as it did for NPR to fire him for his comments on The O'Reilly Factor. The hiring may be just as intriguing as the firing. I feel like Fox News is looking for Juan Williams to reinvent or change who he is. I've seen Juan Williams a lot of times aside from this, and in my opinion he has always been a moderate and reasonable voice on Fox News. However, now Fox and others are probably going to expect Williams to a be a bit more brash and Republican. (That is at least until the whole situation dies down and people kind of forget about the whole situation) I'm pretty sure that won't happen because I don't think that's the kind of person he is, but regardless Fox is just doing what they can to cash in on this controversy. That's something they do and do well. I'm still not sure why NPR felt it was necessary to fire Williams, especially after watching the entire interview, because I'm pretty sure NPR's reputation wasn't hurt, but they have the liberty to do what they wish. Obviously, the whole situation isn't going to be too damaging to Juan Williams either. The first time I had watched the entire interview that caused the firing was just before I started this blog. I had just heard the sound clip the caused the outrage, and I would encourage you to do the same if you haven't already. After watching the entire interview Williams seems just as sane as he did before. Through a lot of the interview he is at odds debating back and forth with O'Reilly, and he definitely makes more competent comments than the other guest. It's hard to see exactly what negative things are going to come out of this, or if a whole lot is going to change. NPR is still going to be NPR. It just will be without Juan Williams, and I'm sure he is a bit upset at that since he worked there for so long. Fox News will just continue to say how the liberal media is unfairly attacking one of it's employees which is something they always discuss. Some people talk about how he should bring suit against them, but honestly what good will that really serve. He doesn't have much to gain from it. He shouldn't be hurting for money since he just graciously signed a new seven figure contract. No one had their 1st Amendment violated so there's no case there. I'll be surprised if people are even talking about this at the end of the week.

Silvio Berlusconi, The Greatest Politician Ever?

The media loves nothing more than to uncover a good scandal. These scandals can sometimes blow out of proportion, and they can ruin someone's political and personal lives. These scandals can range anywhere from tax fraud or evasion, other financial issues, extra-marital affairs, prostitution, bribery, the occasional slightly racist remark, serious conflicts of interest, political corruption, more political corruption, and the list can go on. We've seen many people go through these types of scandals over the past few years with prominent figures such as Tim Geitner, Rod Blagojevich, Mark Sandford, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, Nathan Deal, and many others. Some of the most infamous scandals could be considered JFK-Marilyn Monroe, Clinton-Lewinsky, and of course Nixon and Watergate. These would be the most infamous because they involved the nation's highest office. Nixon resigned the presidency, and Clinton was almost forced out of office. Also you could add former-whatever to the many of the names above because the scandals that caught up to them. This is probably the way media and politics are most connected in America, and freedom of the press helps. Italy is a different story. If you want non-stop scandals then you need to check out Italy. These types of scandals are in the media as much as they are allowed to be, and you don't need to look at local politics at all. One of the scandals mentioned above is enough to sink any one person's political ship, but can you imagine if a single politician was involved in more than one or two of these scandals. What about all of the scandals and then some? You would think it would be enough to land someone in jail. This is the case of Silvio Berlusoconi. He is the prime minister of Italy, and there isn't a scandal that he may not be involved in. Just last week new charges of possible tax evasion came out in Italian news. The past couple of years he has dealt with sex and prostitution scandals. One which involved a possible 17 year old, and one that definitely involves an 18 year old aspiring model. Berlusconi just turned 73 years old a couple weeks ago. The corruption charges are ongoing as well. This is Italy, and the mafia is still relevant. They are still a major political factor, and they have tremendous power. He has been accused repeatedly of associating with the mafia. He has been formally charged on numerous occasions, but luckily he was able to pass a law saying that the Prime Minister cannot be charged with a crime and taken to trial. This was overturned by the courts a few years ago, but a similar law was passed earlier this year. So what else does Berlusconi have going for him? He owns one of the largest media companies in Italy, and this is where his fortune came from before he entered politics back in the early 90s.  As a matter of fact he is listed at #74 on Forbes Richest People in the world with a net worth of around $9 billion. If you are wondering how he has support and how he could still be in office then you're not alone. However, he has approval ratings around 50%, and he just won a vote of confidence a couple weeks ago so it doesn't look like he's going anywhere too soon. It's got to be easier to be a politician and get the media on your side if you run the country and the most of the media in the country. That is how mass media and politics are just on a totally different level in Italy than the U.S. I find it pretty entertaining, but if all of that was going on in America I probably wouldn't be too amused.