Government as the Recruiter of Last Resort

This is an article that I picked up from the Wall Street Journal about how the government is firing all of the corporate officials at Chrysler and how they are looking to find people to fill their spots. The real question is why does the government think that this is within their power when they only own 8% of the company and why aren't they doing anything about the people who run AIG or the other companies responsible for the economic collapse. It seems that Chrysler is a victim of the poor economy but it is no doubt that it has been mismanaged. I personally think that Fiat, which owns a majority of the company should be the one changing things up for Chrysler and not the U.S government. The government is totally disregarding Fiat's rights to control a majority of its business because it has a majority share of the company. On the other hand the government owns about 80% of AIG and still they are only talking about changing leadership there.

Why is there a discrepancy? The government should be going to town on AIG and putting those guys in jail for misleading Americans and killing our economy. Their assets should be taken and given to the people if this government is all about socialism, not something I want. I rather see the government take the personal assets of the people who run AIG and put it towards honest businesses or ones that are suffering that didn't cause this mess. 

Check out this article at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124139467875781705.html

Auto Buying Trends in the U.S

According to the LA Times in an article titled, Buying Habits are the Latest Automotive Import. For the first time since 1963 consumer spending on cars is down and it is due to the weakened economy and the spike in gas prices. Two things have changed, according to the article, the amount of cars that we buy and also the kinds of cars we buy. This is because the baby boomers no longer have the money they thought they were going to have to retire on and so they are spending less on cars and aren't buying cars to take a lot of gas. They are also not able to tap into the equity of their homes to use that cash to buy new cars because their homes have gone down in value. Car companies are struggling to get people to take cars off their lots and it seems that people are looking for cars that are reliable and are fuel efficient. In certain ways we have been becoming more like our European counterparts in the way that we shop for our cars and it is a new dynamic that was never thought to appear in the spending habits of U.S consumers. The article states that in the past people were buying about 6 cars per every 100 people in the country per year. This year it is closer to 3 people per every 100. This is killing car sales in the U.S and the people who may had bought a new car this year has shrunk just because they are afraid to spend the money. 

I feel that this is something that we are going to see forever in the buying habits of people, especially when buying something as expensive as a car. The repercussions of this recession will be felt for a long time after it is done and my gut feeling is that the people of my generation will always carry a bit more of a cautious attitude about their spending. That said, I also think that when the article says that car sales will be back by 2014 is conservative but I guess the writer feels that time frame is enough time for the economy to rebound. Only time will tell if things have changed in the minds of American consumers, if the past is any indication, things will go back to the way they were just as the 1920's saw great innovations in auto design, followed by the 30's and the generic cars of that time and then 40's and 50's with some of the greatest cars designs of the 20th century. If money and fuel are plenty the auto market will reflect those trends.

Article: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-auto-outlook4-2009may04,0,6898636.story

Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal and Al Queda

This post is in response to a article that I read on The New York Times website. It was titled, Pakistan Strife Raises U.S Doubts on Nuclear Arms. In the past few weeks Al Queda has been infiltrating Northern Pakistan and some officials in the U.S are afraid that it is possible that nuclear weapons may be able to get into the hands of people who would hurt the U.S. The United States has questioned Pakistan to figure out where their arsenals lay and how vulnerable they really are but Pakistan has not be cooperative in giving us that information, they fear we will destroy the weapons if the Al Queda threat is considered "imminent". Many of the people in the U.S government know that Pakistan does not keep their weapons in one central location but actually in different locations or constantly being moved to respond to tensions on the India boarder. 

I had forgotten about how violative Pakistan has been in the past few years and this article has reminded me that a critical situation is always moments from happening in that part of the world. Pakistan with its current political instability is a disaster waiting to happen and we, as the world community should do something to stabilize the situation. It would be a good idea for the U.N to possibly pressure Pakistan to release information about where its nuclear arms are located and also, if necessary send U.N peacekeepers or a coalition to quell violence in the region. If met with the prospect of an international force sent to settle any unrest it may be enough to force the Pakistani's to seek a peaceful resolution and also clear their nation of terrorist supporters. If we, meaning the world, don't do something but watch this situation develop we may be seeing mushroom clouds, the question is where? 

Classmates Blog

For my response to a classmates blog I choose to do Nicco's Blog and his post on Californians and their opinion of the media in the politics. Nicco brings up some good points and says that the video is biased as do I. I feel that too many of these videos exist in which make people draw conclusions without knowing all the details. Just because its a video doesn't mean that seeing is believing. I also think that too many of these videos exist and are taken seriously, we need more objective news if we are going to increase the probability of solving issues in the future.

Local news at 11

So, for this post I will discuss the local news at 11. The local news that I chose to watch was News 4 New York. This particular news program was not very political other than mentioning that a senator from Staten Island recently died on vacation. It did consist of many human interest stories, topics ranging from how to find missing make up that has been discontinued and the weather. The news was pretty entertaining and they talk about fires and how Swine Flu is still around. The Swine Flu story has died down a little bit since last week but is definitely still going to be around for awhile. I wouldn't say that the local news was as entertaining as the Daily Show but it was entertaining considering it was just local stories and things that I could relate to because I live in this area. I feel that there wasn't enough political content and I really would like at least a few more minutes focused on the economy or what Obama is doing to make the U.S strong again. The local news didn't even cover how local politicians are trying to tackle the issues in this area and I would also like to see some more coverage of that kind of story. 

Network News and the Daily Show

The difference between network news and the Daily Show is actually not incredibly different in the sense of content. At times I feel like the Daily Show does actually go into topics that the network news doesn't even bother to go into, probably because they feel that average Americans can't relate to the stories. It's even more interesting to see that even though many people don't understand the issues, the Daily Show is still a huge source for many people my age to get their news. I know that when I watch the network news I am not as interested and I have subconsciously established filters on what I listen to and what I just ignore. When I watch the Daily Show I am waiting for jokes and desiring to be entertained so I listen to more of what is being said just so I can get the most out of the program. 

I feel that shows like the Daily Show should not be used as a sole means of information but its not a bad place to kindle interest in different issues. It also is a good way to get a different point of view on topics that are tired and over played on the network news stations. I also like the Daily Show because it usually makes fun of the network news, and I do truly resent them. 

Fox News V.S CNN

These two news networks definitely cover the big events differently. They do cover similar events in most cases but the spin that each network puts on the stories is apparent and it that is even reflected in the shows played during the day. Each network has people that they interview during the day to support their stories and many times they interview people that are purposely set up so that when they try to go against the network they are then pummeled by the newscasters. It is quite sad that both of these networks are still in business, I personally hate both and I occasionally watch the BBC if I'm in the mood for the news. Many times the BBC at least brings the perspective of an outsider and doesn't have to worry about party politics. Although both Fox and CNN have their flaws, they both play their role in society. They make people with different views polarize their opinions and in the end nothing is accomplished. CNN does have plenty of negative stories that run about how the economy is bad, why its bad, why the Untied States is wrong, and of course why its all Bush's fault. On the flip side you have Fox and their negative and quite unprofessional anchors talking about the end of the world and how it sucks that Obama is President. They also like hire crazy people who think that the Patriot Act and the censorship and spying of the government on the people is a great idea. Even though CNN can suck sometimes, nothing beats Fox and their group of nuts. I feel that one day that news networks like these will be different, I can't see how Americans can watch this stuff on TV and not got nauseous, I know I do.   

Rush Limbaugh

The impression I got from Limbaugh is a man that is afraid of change and is an honest to God Republican. I don't know if anyone senses this when they watch or hear this man speak but I truly feel that he has become delusional. I suppose that when you're that old and racist its hard to say anything positive about anyone. Its also interesting because at first I thought he was only anti democratic party. It seems that he even hates on members of his own party if he thinks that they're weak or to sympathetic to liberal issues. He also thinks that when Obama was elected that many people felt that they couldn't speak badly about him because they were afraid of being called racists. I personally think this idea is nonsense and that anyone who is in politics, white or black, should be able to criticize their candidate without being considered a racist as long as their criticism does not involve racially charged statements. 

Another thing about this man is that he tends to twist the facts in order to make his rants more convincing. He also uses emotion, like most people that are trying to sell anything, to gain support of his crazy accusations. Rush needs to retire in my opinion, or at least think of better ways to support his arguments.  

Good Night and Good Luck

After seeing Good Night and Good Luck I can see how many people who were within the media actually view the establishment of the mass media. It seems that many reporters back in that time period were fearful of the government control and hysteria surrounding the Red Scare. It was also a time when the government was going after anyone they could who was involved in the media and label them a communist. The ability of the U.S.S.R to steal the secrets of the atomic bomb from the Americans was the beginning of the paranoia that anyone who was in the U.S could possibly be a spy for the Russians. The reporters felt that too much government control would lead to the end of our freedoms and would lead us to a similar situation that the people in Russia were in. 

I feel that this movie has many valid points and is a good representation of the times. I also feel that it is a good way for people today to look at how the media controls the way we thing about things and how the government is able to establish a certain hold over us as well. 

The Obama Deception- YouTube Video

So, for the YouTube video that I had to write about I choose a video that had an extreme title and I figured it would be interesting and somewhat controversial. Despite my previous posts on how I feel that conspiracy theories are bogus and how they are held together with shaky theories, I do find them quite fun. This video outlines the Obama Administration is part of a greater international government which actually is in control of everything. This states that the last real President of the United States was JFK and we all know what happened to him. It also talks about how the world is run by the military industrial complex and that they are run by the heads of the world banks.

This stuff is the kind of conspiracy theory type program I would expect to see on YouTube. I would not expect to see it on TV just because it really pushes the limit of what most people could take as relevant information. It also seems that the corny music and mediocre editing don't do the film that much justice. I think that parts of this are comical, with a scene with a news crew leaving a hotel where a press conference is going to happen and saying that they are being tailed when the guy gets out of his car and goes to Moes. I would ask to take a look for yourself, its long so just sample it if you like but it is pretty interesting if not entertaining.

Feminist Blog

I went to a blog titled Feministing.com and I was surprised by what I found. There was a post right at the top of the page for sex advice and how people wrote into the blog with sexual questions and they were responded to by whoever runs it. There is also plenty of stuff about gay and transexual rights and I thought that was also an interesting subject topic but at the same time I figured it was something that would find its place on a feminist blog. I personally have never visited a feminist blog and so I wasn't sure what I'd find while I was there. The second post from the top was about how New Hampshire is not very interested in Transgender rights. The post does bring up some good points and the people who are voting for gay rights in New Hampshire are also voting against laws that protect transgendered people from discrimination. This is a great post because it definitely points out the inconsistencies of politicians and how bureaucratic our government really is. 

The more I read and understand what people right on blogs the more I feel like this is the future of how we get our news. It doesn't make sense to buy into the crap that is on T.V and this stuff is written by people who really care about the issues. They may have biases but at the same time they are private individuals and should be allowed to have those. It helps me get a better idea of how a person of that mindset thinks about particular issues and rationalizes their thoughts. 

Hannity and Colmes

One word comes to mind after thinking about what I had viewed, "Clowns". This is not because these men are conservative nuts or because they lack the professionalism that people in the news should have. Who the hell would interview someone who believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Did I miss something when Fox News considered itself a news channel? How can people take the news seriously or with any type of validity with crap like this on the air? I can only come up with one conclusion, it makes them money! These guys are as bad as used car salesman, use emotion, use a bit of touch up paint and you can fool anyone into believing what you're selling is the best stuff around. This is the garbage that people who may be emotionally attached to an issue can really get upset about and then decide that Hannity and Colmes are legit because they are standing up for "what America believes in and whats good for democracy". I look for the reason why they wouldn't do a story about something that really matters instead of interviewing a man who is insane and claiming that the U.S planned the attacks on 9/11 and its just a huge coverup. That's bull, the truth is that some people in this world don't like us, live with it. Grow up, stop pointing your finger at the government and realize that its just because mommy and daddy didn't love you and you want attention. 

Hannity and Colmes, you guys should know better than to do this to our country if you're all about protecting democracy and supporting the conservative right. This kind of infotainment is NOT news and shouldn't be on a major news network. Another thing, let your guest finish a sentence before cutting them off and going on a personal attack, you both are incredibly transparent and irritating. 

This relates to class because we talk about how the media is a business and how it really looks for great stories in order to get peoples attention. Fox is probably one of the best at doing this because they go to the extreme in almost everything they do. The best part is that, as long as you aren't oblivious, you can see that Fox is always about selling information to its viewership and maintaining its overbearing Republican overtones that have helped polarize the American public. These kinds of shows are dangerous to the fabric of the society we live in and should be shut down before they destroy us from within. 

The Girls Next Door

This show does nothing for the socialization of girls but make them think that being blonde stupid is what is socially acceptable. I do admit, it is interesting because I have always been curious what the inside of the Playboy Mansion looks like and how life is there. Then again, who really cares how the girl friends of Hugh live and what they do from day to day. This show is negative for how people should look at women because it shows them as objects of some multi- millionaire who has made all of his money through the exploitation of women. 

The real question is that in a society that is supposed to be sensitive about race, class and gender how is a show like this able to be allowed to show on T.V? One would think that there isn't a demand for shows like this but apparently it seems that the old formula stands strong, SEX = MONEY! I feel that in our capitalistic society the ability of a show like this to survive is based on the demand of people in great enough numbers that it will turn a profit. It has nothing to do with the moral high ground that we constantly try to refer to when speaking about how things in America should be and then what they really are. What this show really does is take a very primitive human emotion and exploit it in order to make money. Women are not the only ones that should be upset about a show like this but everyone who has watched it is technically being exploited for the good of some rich guy who owns the T.V network!  

6:00 News

For this post I watched New 4 New York which is an affiliate of NBC. The program starts off with the newscasters talking about how Swine Flu has hit more victims in the city but no one was seriously ill. They seem to break things down first at a local level then they talk about national events/international things. Then they'll talk about the latest in sports and entertainment with some fun or light hearted story towards the end of the broadcast with the weather. Its just interesting to see how and which stories make it to air and how the media feels what to label important or not important. A lot of the news is about things happening around us and our communities and many times there are negative stories about someone getting shot or so and so dying. It all is rather depressing but yet it still conjures up the public interest. Typically we'll also hear about public personalities or politicians making fools of themselves and for the better of our entertainment. The local news tends to come off as an informal look at the news and many times the newscasters tend to joke around or act foolish and then try to pull off looking smart or educated about a story topic to create the appearance that they are a legitimate source of information. I typically walk away from the local news with the feeling that I just lost that time and I will never get it back, I could have just as easily and more efficiently have gone online and seen the headlines.

Pandemic?

This article talks about how the possibility of the swine flu may actually be more dangerous than many are writing it off it be. As with pandemics of the past the Swine Flu may have a more violent second wave a few months from now when the disease may take on much more deadly characteristics. It is also interesting that some of the leading authorities on this disease are actually looking back to records as far back as 90 years ago on how to possibly protect ourselves against mounting cases and possible catastrophe. 

The interesting thing is that in class, we have discussed that the Swine Flu seems to be getting over played on the news and the media is just trying to milk this topic for all that it is worth. I feel like it only makes sense that the media would just love this story and that its a great way for them to make money By creating panic the media is able to exploit the masses and use fear to make themselves a buck. It also is an issue that can call into question the legitimacy of the media and if they are hurting our country with their constant coverage 24 hours a day. Give me a break, we live in America, we aren't Mexico. Mexico is a totally different country and the reason why people are dying there is because of overpopulation and unsanitary conditions. In America, if you get sick you go to the doctor, if you can't get better on your own, you go to the hospital. I think the media is just taking advantage of all of the worry wort soccer moms who freak out if their kid skins their shins while riding their bike. If you would like to buy into all of the hysteria please read this article on CNN it will help you sleep better at night. NOT!

Environmental Blog

It's the Planet, Stupid!

So, while I was looking through dozens of environmental blogs, It's the Planet, Stupid! stood out as a very interesting and well informed forum. The post that I concentrated on was one that talked about how nuclear power could be safe and an incredible alternative to the traditional coal and oil power plants. The title of that post is called, "Safe Acceptable Nuclear Power? Heres a way..." and was about how nuclear power is still a very good alternative and to only real viable means to kicking our dependency on fossil fuels. The thing that really struck me about this blog is that it was very organized and well thought out when describing how nuclear power can be used to provide safe power. The other thing that struck me as interesting is that the blogger felt that it was also important to point out the disadvantages of building nuclear power plants with questions that would need to be answered by someone working out the costs of such a facility. Although the costs would most likely be high it seems as though the blogger feels that it is worth it to build such plants in order to tide us over until renewable energies are more advanced to be economically plausible.

I feel that this post is a great example of how someone who is concerned with the environment would present their thoughts on the topic. The argument is strong and the solution is a good idea but what this article is lacking is hard facts and statistics that would make it a legitimate news story. This could never make it to a page of a newspaper just because even if the idea is a valid one it lacks substance to defend the stance of the blogger. I have to address that even though this blog would not be considered a work of journalism it is actually a great example of what a blog is expected to be. It raises the concerns of an individual and it addresses a problem that is constantly talked about. It allows the reader to remain open minded and consider an idea that might not have been. I feel that after looking through the rest of this blog that it does make some good points and that it has forced me to think about alternatives to our current energy concerns.

Huffington Post

Content of Huffington Post

This was my first visit to the Huffington Post and I was not sure what to expect when I finally got the chance to look at it. In appearance it actually seems to be like a regular news site and the articles that appear there are much different than what one sees at CNN or the New York Times. I read an article about how Obama has lifted the ban on having the media cover war dead arriving back in the U.S and about another about how Alexrod, one of the Presidents advisors, is firing back at Dick Cheney for his comments about the War on Terror and how he feels that the President is inviting attacks on the American people. Its also interesting to see that many different articles are posted on the main page and that they are viewpoints that are not commonly seen in the mass media. Many of these articles are based in opinion but they use facts to back up their arguments and validate their messages. This format is a great way for people who want an outside opinion to come up with their own opinions on what is happening in the world around them and lets the break free of the bonds of the agenda that the big news organizations try to push on their readers. The cool thing about this blog is that at the very bottom of the main page there is a section just for the display of all of the news sources cited in their articles and I was surprised to see Al Jezeera as one of them. As I was saying before its a great place to get insight on issues that we either never heard of or have only heard of from the basis point of view that is seen on T.V or read in newspapers all the time. This site also uses Twitter and RSS as a way for people to get more involved and keep them informed in the content of the site. The most interesting part of this site is that it is open for anyone to leave a comment or write about anything that is important to them. This lets people get involved in the events that interest them and if someone is passionate about something they are able to get an enormous audience to share their thoughts. Blogs like this have changed the way people are able to obtain information and share their viewpoints in a mass forum. It seems that blogs are going to be a huge part, if not already, as legitimate places to obtain information and come up with opinions of your own on important issues.

The quality of the posts was surprisingly informed. I felt that some of the articles could have been written by people who were journalists. The one thing that is not great is that the writing was not consistent and some articles were very intelligently written and others were lacking in comparison. If that is the price that one pays for getting a broader opinion on events it seems like this may be a double edged sword. If someone makes good points but isn't at a standard educational level it is much more difficult to take their argument seriously. At the same time sometimes a good point is a good point. It really lies in the readers hands to decide for him/herself if an argument is valid and if the journalist really knows what they are talking about.

Front Page of Traditional Paper

U.S offers to Cut Nuclear Arms

In the article that I selected from the Wall Street Journal which was on Obama and his recent trip to Prague. He spoke to about 20,000 about his aims to decrease the amount of nuclear weapons that the United States has in its stock piles and wants the countries that currently have the largest amounts of weapons to also decrease their supplies as well. He talked about letting countries develop their nuclear programs in the name of energy and wanted to have the U.N to take on a larger role in helping moderate and watch developing nuclear programs in the name of peaceful energy research. The President also spoke in response to the missile firing in North Korea and stated,

"Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something," Mr. Obama told the crowd, calling the launch a provocative act that violated United Nations Security Council resolutions. "The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response."

Obama is trying to rekindle the idea of using diplomacy in order to take down rogue nations like North Korea so that future wars can be kept to a minimum and that international intervention, if used carefully, can be our strongest weapon against those that threaten not only Americans but the world. He also wants the disposal of the old weapons to be controlled so that they will not find their way to the black market.

Some opponents to Mr. Obamas ideas on disarmament feel that this may leave the U.S vulnerable and that we may be distracting ourselves from issues that are pressing us. The President also brought up the idea of no longer investing in the missile shield that the United States has spent billions of dollars developing during and after the Cold War, under the terms that Iran would stop building nuclear arms.

The impression one gets from this article is that many people realize that a world without nuclear arms is destined to be a world that is more peaceful in nature. It is interesting to see that even in countries like the Czech Republic people really care about the security and safety of the world they live in and the important role President Obama plays in international policy. I feel like this is a smart move because he is actively trying to get countries like Russia and China involved and wants to open up relations with countries that we have had mixed relationships with. Hopefully in the future the U.S will be able to have open dialogue that will help us in promoting peace and communication with our international neighbors. On the other side of things, one can see this words as just another ploy by Obama to try to boost his popularity and gain more power. It is dangerous to have a president who is so popular just because people may stop questioning Obama policy decisions. Only time will tell but it does seem like a good idea to limit the amount of nuclear weapons world wide.

Op-ed of the New York Times

Larger Than Life in London

This article talks about President Obama and his trip to England for the G-20. It speaks about how the President is very different from the "old" leadership in Europe who is stuck in the old class structure and how even saying hello to a servant is considered classless. When Obama landed in England he shook hands with one of the guards who stand outside of of 10 Downing Street. Prime Minister Brown ignored the handshake from the guard because out of English habit the guard is nothing more than a fixture. The article also talks about how the leaders of Europe wish to obtain some of the popularity that Obama possess and so desperately want to emulate him in some way. The article even goes into how Ms. Obama went to a school and was genuinely interested in the activities of the students and was very conscious of the role that she plays as the First Lady.

This article is an interesting piece and not only is very pro-Obama but also very harsh on the leaders of Europe and how they are dealing with their decreasing popularity. It seems like the author is taking the events that he saw at the protests in England and the manners of the politicians as skin deep and a Europe that is not what they seem to be. He even talks about how French President Sarkozy was a man of Napoleon syndrome and how the French do not understand how the United States and England have become such Allies even though the French have done so much for the Americans. Similar was said about the Germans and how they are not a closer ally with the U.S with their large economy and strong ancestral ties in America.

I feel that this author is playing very much into the fact that the European people have a fascination with President Obama and his charisma has not only captivated Americans but also our Western counterparts. He makes it seem as if the image and rhetoric of change that Obama has used for his American political career has also caught the attention of the people of Europe who are also looking for change in their nations. From this article it seem like America is finding a new popularity with European countries and it will be interesting how this attitude will shape the coming years as we are well into the 21st century.

For more information visit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/opinion/05gill.html?scp=5&sq=op-ed&st=cse

What is happening to the U.S economy?

President Obama this week has presented to the American public his idea of how we are going to get out of this mess and has brought the government together to talk about how they need to take responsibility in this time of uncertainty. The tone that Obama has taken until now has been pessimistic, at best, but as of yesterday had a surprisingly renewed optimism about the ability of the United States to overcome this hurdle in history. As a result to the treasury coming up with a "stress test" for the banks the stock market railed yesterday but fell today due to a lot of uncertainty in the length of the recession. It's scary not knowing what is going to happen and it seems that even the "experts" don't know either. Only time will tell if we will recover to the greatness that we have enjoyed in the past and if the words of Obama "We will rebuild, we will recover and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before." To find out information check out this link. http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/25/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?postversion=2009022518