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.