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.

Really? What An Absurd Thing For A Government To Do

Last week the United States government gave an apology to Guatemala for purposely injecting Guatemalan citizens with syphilis in the 1940s. I was aghast when I heard that this occurred. Why? Why was the U.S. federal government wasting its time, resources and money with giving Central Americans STDs? So it turns out that they did all of this to test penicillin. Was there not people already carrying the disease in our own country that probably would have gladly volunteered to test the drug if it meant curing this ailment? That makes more sense to me. An article I read said that Guatemala is considering whether to press for crimes against humanity or not, and why wouldn't they? Chances are the scientists that did this are either dead or very close to it. So, unfortunately they probably won't get real justice for this heinous act. They got an apology, and let's face it they are lucky to get that.
I don't know why people think that our government is infallible and pure and always such a great thing. Sure this isn't a common thing that we hear in the news. However, we don't know everything that goes on. Governments keep secrets because they like to give the appearance of being this grand and generous entity. This is a reason why the press has to do its surveillance duties and be a watchdog for the citizens. Governments lie and do evil things. Don't kid yourself. There is this example with Guatemala, the Tuskegee experiment where they did the same thing to our own citizens, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Ruby Ridge, the WMD justification for Iraq, and the list could go on. I'm pretty sure it'd be naive to think that this crap might end one day, but I certainly have my doubts of that. I only can only hope that the media will continue to try and expose these things then maybe one day things like this will cease. Ha, yeah right.

Pledge To America: Some new old ideas from the newly unchanged GOP

With the GOP poised to retake the House and possibly the Senate they have released their "Pledge to America." This is supposed to outline some of the ways Republicans plan to govern this time around if they are given Congress back. In all honestly, what issues have changed, and also what is the likelihood of actually getting most of this done. Mainly, the person in the white house who has to sign these bills into law isn't the biggest fan of theirs. I'm definitely no democrat, and I'm not really that enthused with the Republicans either. I really don't think that this pledge has any real significance, and I don't think a whole lot of people have really taken it that serious. I do admit I didn't read the entire 40+ page document, but I did read through their smaller, pocket edition, of the pledge that lays out the general main points. Anyway, let's look a few points they lay out. 
-It starts out talking about how they plan to not introduce any job-killing bills. I must admit that is a very good plan.
-Spending: They want to plan a way to balance the budget, and start reducing the debt. That would be good if they really intended to do that. One way they say to do this is by cutting spending to a pre-stimulus and pre-bailout level. That's nice except even before all of that the budget wasn't balanced. Also, put a cap on new discretionary spending. That's never really happened before, and I'm sure anything defense is exempt from this. They also say they will have weekly spending cuts. I hope no one is really that naive.
-They talk about getting rid of unnecessary programs. Unfortunately, this is much easier said than done, but I hope they can come through on this. Also they don't really list out exactly what programs they want to get rid of. Maybe this is in the actual document, but I have my doubts about that.
-There's a health care section, but we're all aware of the stances and situations there so there's not much to go into.
-There's a read the bill with a three day waiting period prevision, but let's be honest they never really did before so why start now. Most of them probably don't even completely read the short bills. Also, who would enforce this.
-They talk about how they will adhere to the Constitution, and require every piece of legislation to cite where that is legal under the Constitution. I like this a lot, but Bush and Republican blatantly violated the Constitution, so I don't expect that to really be truthful. I like having to cite where the Constitution gives congress the authority to do whatever, but this is sort of flawed. You can use the commerce clause or other things for just about anything, but I would at least still like to have this requirement there.
-Foreign Policy: This is where Republicans really don't understand much of anything, and where they're less government, lower spending, etc. doesn't ever come up. Instead this is the area where government should apparently grow and grow and never stop expanding. Point Two: Keep terrorists out of America. Thanks! I'm glad they mentioned that, or I would've thought terrorists were welcome. The next point says they will, "Enact an overarching detention policy for terrorists combatants." That is just completely ridiculous. I don't want Gitmo to continue to be what it is. Capture the dangerous people then try them then put them in a jail or execute the worst of them or something, but quit the indefinite suspensions of habeus corpus. That's not what America should be. Then Iran comes up, and I cannot fully figure out the fascination by conservatives of Iran. Yes their president is a crazy idiot. I do not deny that, but I'm not afraid of Iran. I'm pretty sure that Iran is never going to drop a bomb on America, and in reality Israel can defend itself  since they have their own nukes. The thing that scares me most if Republicans come back to power is a possible invasion of Iran. I can't fathom how they think this would be a reasonable or good decision.
-Immigration is briefly discussed. We'll see what actually happens with that. I would guess nothing really sensible though. They say they will strengthen visa security. I'm not completely positive what exactly that is, but I would guess they are going to make it harder for people get visas. This would make it harder to come here legally therefore causing more illegal immigration. Let's face it this issue is never going to be fully resolved.
They go on to conclude with basically saying that they're not going to do anything that the Democrats have done. Good. I am just so doubtful that Republican policies will show any real difference than before. I don't agree with them on too much, and I probably disagree with Obama and the democrats more. Therefore, I say vote libertarian. Vote for freedom. Don't vote for the lesser of two evils because the lesser of two evils is still evil!

What Exactly Does It Take To Be An Economic Expert?

In class we watched the Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer clip, and discussed financial reporting in the media. It seems like that it's too often that these economic experts are pretty far off. Do they just not want to report bad news? The picture is often painted as everything is ok or it's getting better. It seems like people continually take Ben Bernake's word on the status of the economy, but why trust a man who is continually wrong? He will give reports saying the economy is getting better when obviously the situation is no better off than before. Also, you got to love when the president has given interviews at the beginning of the month saying that they created however many jobs in the previous month, but the unemployment has risen. Do people really not realize this? Then there are the people that are on TV, such as Cramer, who give predictions and report on the economic and financial systems. Fox News, Fox Business, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and all the other channels have shows  and "expert" guests that are on everyday dedicated to this. I understand nobody is perfect, but do the majority of these people really not get it or understand what has, is happening, and going to happen at all. It seems like when someone speaks against the optimism that is being discussed they get criticized and are said to be preaching doom and gloom. Why is that a bad thing? I understand people don't enjoy bad news. However, would you not want to be told that you have cancer then go on living as if everything was going to be alright because you don't think anything bad could ever happen to you.

When we started talking about this in class there was one person and some videos that came to mind. That was Peter Schiff who correctly predicted back in 2006 and 2007 that the country was headed for a massive economic recession, but was continually laughed and scolded at for saying that the fundamentals of the economy were not sound. Why are people like this and their ideas not given more credit? It's not like he never gave reasons for this thought process either. He also ran for U.S. Senate in Connecticut this year, but lost in the primary to millionaire WWE CEO Linda McMahon because she was basically able to buy the election by spending millions on it. Whereas, Peter Schiff had less financial support and not the same name recognition, and there was also former Connecticut Congressman in the running. It seems as though there was a real lack of investigation of the candidates by voters in this race. You can watch the video below and develop your own opinion, but I want people like this in D.C. fighting for Americans. You got to love how he proves one of Reagan's former top economic advisers wrong. Then there was when a panel of Fox News economic experts are asked what stocks to invest in and they all suggest to invest in businesses that collapsed and were at the head of the crisis when all of it really started to unravel, but Schiff suggested that people should have stayed away from stock market. He suggested that people should have invested in gold because he thought that it would go above $1,000/ounce; this was when it was under $90/oz. To say the least he could not have been more right. I encourage you to take the time and watch the video because it really is fascinating.






He was also on The Daily Show if that helps legitimize him. 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Peter Schiff
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

She Just Couldn't Stay In Alaska

For whatever reason Sarah Palin has become a pretty big political celebrity. A few years ago she was pretty much unknown outside the state of Alaska. Then after becoming the Republican VP nominee she and her political inexperience was later criticized for being one of the reasons that John McCain didn't do better in the election. Now nobody really likes old man McCain anymore, but now she is apparently one of  the greatest things to ever happen to the Republican Party. It really was quite a switch, and all she had to do was resign as governor and start working for Fox News. Then somewhere along the way she became the face of the Tea Party movement. In my opinion she has done all of the this without really becoming any more intelligent on anything that matters. I'm getting tired of her being this great political figure all of the sudden while she has become nothing more than a talking head for the Republican Party. Something else that really gets on my nerves is Palin going from state to state endorsing these candidates that I'm willing to bet she doesn't even really know much about. Especially as of recent she has been endorsing the women in select races because I guess that's what matters to her. Her influence almost worked in Georgia when she backed Handel for Governor, but luckily Palin couldn't change enough of Georgians' minds. (Not that the other options were much different/better) Anyway, then when these often tea party candidates win their primaries it is considered as an accomplishment for Palin. The only thing she has really accomplished is not minding her own business, and intruding into local elections where she doesn't belong. I'll admit I voted McCain/Palin in 2008, but I could not honestly give you a good reason why other than I saw it as the lesser of two evils. I guarantee I won't do that again if she is on a ballot in 2012. It just baffles me that she has become what she has, but good for her and candidate that gets her seal of approval because no one would ever consider turning down that kind of endorsement.

If you are a Palin supporter and wish to give me a reason why I am wrong and she is a respectable political figure then please comment. If you are also confused or frustrated by Palin's celebrity status then I welcome your comments as well.

When will it all end?

About a week and a half ago President Barack Obama announced the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, more commonly referred to as the Iraq War. However, he went on to make known that it was only the "combat" part of the mission was over. I'm sure that everyone is aware of this, and the fact that there are still around 50,000 soldiers still in Iraq. That's still a lot of troops, and those troops still face serious dangers. Unfortunately, no one can deny that there will still be casualties despite their "non-combative" status. With that being said, Why go through the theatrics of sitting in your chair in the oval office and proclaim to the nation that you've ended the war when you really haven't? I understand the scale back in number of troops is part of the process of ending the war, and had John McCain been elected not even that would have happened. I just don't understand why the big speech was necessary just because you changed  the name of the strategy. Last week on a special episode of the Colbert Report dedicated to the end of the war and bringing  troops home Vice President Joe Biden was a guest, and during his interview he admitted that the war was not won. Therefore, one can logically conclude that it's not over. It just seems to me that the big prime time address didn't necessarily need to be done in the way that it was. When all of the troops are brought home a big speech would make sense, or at least when almost all of the troops are home because lets face it there are going to be U.S. military bases in Iraq for a long time. That's just the way it is. Either way there will probably always be serious chaos in one way or another in Iraq, so let's hope that's not what they're waiting on. There was Bush's Mission Accomplished speech, and there was this speech by Obama along with more moments in between. I'm not saying there aren't moments that aren't important, but just a regular speech giving updates like this latest one would have been sufficient in my opinion. I'm just don't want to see the theatrics that pretend that the president was or is such a great accomplisher when not much of anything has changed.

Does Anybody Really Care?

Now that we don't really have to think about Georgia politics again until late October when the automated calls start coming to remind us there will be an election soon we don't have to worry about the issues concerning Georgia. It's important to note that the two main candidates running for governor don't seem to be that concerned with the issues either. Roy Barnes has been running a few campaign ads on TV, and why talk about something you would actually like to accomplish in the state if elected when you can just talk how your main opponent has had some corruption issues. I suppose that is important, but a campaign should consist of more than that. I assume that Nathan Deal's main campaign attack will be the fact of how Barnes did a terrible job as governor before so why would you give him another chance. As a matter of fact I heard a radio commercial this morning from some PAC about how Roy has been going around the state on an apology tour just like Obama did earlier on in his presidency. It informs that Roy's tour is about apologizing for his bad job as governor. This commercial was not endorsed by Deal's campaign, but I'm sure he will air similar ads. The commercial ended by saying that "Roy Barnes is worse than Obama." I'm no Obama fan, but I have to say that line was kind of ridiculous because it's not really a fair comparison. I know the demagoguery will be the main talking point, but would it kill them to slide in a sentence or two about something that could possibly one day help Georgians. Of course come November most people will again be entrenched with who they think is the best person for the job that actual issues to most won't be relevant because it's as simple as Republican vs. Democrat. That was quite a primary from the Republicans this year. I especially enjoyed one of the debates on GPB between Deal and Handel. When they would get a question about whatever the typical response was something along the lines of, "I will make better the whatever issue, and I'm better than my opponent and my opponent won't be the best person to deal with this." There was no real solution about helping the education situation that is plaguing the state currently. No mention of getting rid of the state income tax. It's almost like all they care about is getting elected. Johnny Isakson will enjoy what will pretty much be an automatic reelection. This is even though he voted for Bush's bailouts and has been an easy party line vote for Republicans. It seems also like he's just content to be in the Senate without being a true constitutional leader. I'm sick of people saying  "I'm voting for the lesser of two evils", or "he/she may not be the ideal candidate, but they're better than the other guy." Remember come November there will be a third option. You can vote Libertarian, and don't give that terrible line, "I don't want to waste my vote," or "I would, but they don't have a chance." Vote for someone who really has principle. Vote for real change; really send a message to politicians. Voting for someone because he's not someone else isn't going to help Georgia or the nation.

Here are a few links to get you thinking:
http://www.votemonds.com/
http://www.donovanforsenate.com/
http://www.lp.org/states/Georgia

About this mosque

The issue with the Islamic community center/mosque has become one of the biggest and most controversial issues of the year in the past month or so. Even though it has been planned to be built for months it for some reason has just recently become this outrageous thing. I'm not sure when or who ignited the fire of the mosque issue, but it grew and spread quickly. Now it's discussed on every TV and radio talk show everyday. Politicians in New York and every other state in country are using it in campaigning and for political leverage. Honestly, I am tired of it being controversial because there is nothing that can be done that will stop it. I do not like thw fact that a candidate for office inside and outside of New York may win this November because they have denounced it and/or proclaimed that it should not be built. It shouldn't be a campaign issue outside of New York, and I don't really think it should there either. Yes, I understand the controversy about the mosque. However, I don't think that this Islamic center is being built to praise the terrorists that attacked America. It's not like Al Qaeda is building a memorial there. Considering this is a country that has a constitution based on natural rights there is freedom of religion in America. The people that are building the community center have done nothing illegal, and they have every right to build there if they want to. There is nothing anyone can do that will stop it from being built on the basis of them being Muslims. The property belongs to them therefore they have property rights, and the property cannot be taken away from them. As long as they are in compliance with New York City zoning laws then there is no constitutional violation that should take place. The fact that saying this is disrespectful is making a generalization that Muslims are ok with what happened, and that is simply not true. America should be able to show that our enemy isn't Islam, but some radical ideologues that don't represent an entire religion. I liked what Jon Stewart had to say on the issue, and I think he did well to explain why America can't over react to this situation. Even though he is the host of "comedy show" he decides to be serious sometimes, and for most of this segment he is and he does a good job of explaining why most people aren't acting the way they should. It is unfortunate this issue has become what it has, but America has to be a country that values its constitution.


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition?xrs=share_copy

How Real Should Reality TV Be?

http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/08/g4-hurt-locker-reality-show.html

Is putting a camera crew with a dangerous unit in Afghanistan a good thing? I don't think that war should provide a lot of entertainment value to people especially while that war is still going on. War movies have been big moneymakers for Hollywood for  many years. I don't think that is a bad thing because they can provide entertainment and a good insight into our history, but they are still just movies. Even movies based on true stories do not contain the complete truth. I don't want this to take away from the seriousness of these wars more than it already has been. At times it seems easy to forget that the wars are going on because depending on the day they are less reported on than they were after they first started. Currently as I am writing this there is not a front page story on either CNN or Fox News about Iraq or Afghanistan. I saw The Hurt Locker, and I did think it was a good movie. However, I didn't find it that entertaining, but I thought it was good because it was very intense. One reason I probably didn't enjoy it as much along with the reason I'm not completely on board with this new show is because I have a cousin that served in Iraq in the Navy on the Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD). That movie felt almost too real for me to watch and to think about that one of the people in the movie could have been my cousin. And actually this new show plans to follow Navy EODs in Afghanistan, and there is a chance that my cousin could be deployed to Afghanistan. That means that he could possibly be on that show depending on when filming takes place. Honestly, I think that there is a bigger issue to this. I no longer agree with the foreign policy that is being and has been conducted in the Middle East. I think there is more harm being done than good.  I won't go into all of that now though. The show could have positive factors because maybe people will see what is really going on there, and they would think about it more. After seeing The Hurt Locker I thought the troops should be brought home more than I did before seeing it. It was another reason for me to think that because I was given a good visual instead of reading an article on the internet or listening to a reporter just talk about it. It did give insight to what can happen there on a daily basis. The main thing that I could have against this show is that it could demean what American soldiers are and what they're are doing. I completely understand that TV channels are going to put shows on TV that will get ratings and make money. I do not disagree with that philosophy at all; I would just like to see this done for the right reasons. Something like this should not be a gimmick because our troops deserve better than that.

Blog and twitter are created

Here is my blog for mass media and politics. You can follow me on twitter at twitter.com/philpuckett .