Hillary supporters once again dominated the news, as well as whether Hillary herself supported Obama. There was much discussion about her speech, before it ever happened. Would she show enough support? The answer it turns out was, Yes!
Hillary gave the speech she needed to give. She wasted almost no time in announcing her support of Barack Obama. “I am honored to be here tonight. A proud mother. A proud Democrat. A proud American. And a proud supporter of Barack Obama.” Any questions?
There did come a moment when I worried she sounded too much like she was campaigning for herself again.
“I will always remember the single mom who had adopted two kids with autism, didn't have health insurance and discovered she had cancer. But she greeted me with her bald head painted with my name on it and asked me to fight for health care.
I will always remember the young man in a Marine Corps t-shirt who waited months for medical care and said to me: "Take care of my buddies; a lot of them are still over there….and then will you please help take care of me?"
I will always remember the boy who told me his mom worked for the minimum wage and that her employer had cut her hours. He said he just didn't know what his family was going to do.”
Then she went on to list why she ran for office. She built this up perfectly. She essentially got all her supporters to think, “Yes, this is why we wanted you as President.” Then Hillary posed the question. The same question asked by many liberals and Democrats to the members of PUMA.
“I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?”
Well, PUMA, were you? Later she points out exactly why no self-respecting supporter of Hillary should support McCain.
“Now, John McCain is my colleague and my friend.
He has served our country with honor and courage.
But we don't need four more years . . . of the last eight years.
More economic stagnation …and less affordable health care.
More high gas prices …and less alternative energy.
More jobs getting shipped overseas …and fewer jobs created here.
More skyrocketing debt ...home foreclosures …and mounting bills that are crushing our middle class families.
More war . . . less diplomacy.
More of a government where the privileged come first …and everyone else comes last.
John McCain says the economy is fundamentally sound. John McCain doesn't think that 47 million people without health insurance is a crisis. John McCain wants to privatize Social Security. And in 2008, he still thinks it's okay when women don't earn equal pay for equal work.
With an agenda like that, it makes sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities. Because these days they're awfully hard to tell apart. “
In thinking about these PUMAs, I’m reminded of a book I read several years back: Barabbas by Par Lagerkvist. Barabbas is the man whose life was traded for Jesus. Barabbas is set free. Jesus hangs on the cross. Barabbas wants to believe in the Messiah, but struggles throughout the book. In one of the final chapters there is a riot in Rome. People are starting these fires and trying to burn Rome to the ground, Barabbas joins in because he hears people shouting, “It’s the Christians! It’s the Christians!” Barabbas believes it IS the Christians and wants to join their cause. However, it was a Roman plot to blame the Christians as an excuse to arrest as many Christians as they could. He was duped into supporting the enemy.
There have been suggestions that the PUMAs and other organizations like them were started by Republicans to foment division in the Democratic party. After all, many Clinton supporters did say that if Hillary didn’t get the nomination, they would vote for McCain. So it’s in the Republican’s best interest to have division and keep that message out there. Whether they actually did this or not, I don’t know. But if anyone still says they would rather vote for McCain instead of Obama, well after tonight, they can no longer say they support Hillary.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
DNC convention day 1
I love watching the convention coverage. I love watching the way the different networks cover the same thing. PBS definitely has the most unbiased coverage. One thing I wanted to talk about on this first day of the convention: Hillary Clinton Supporters.
On MSNBC, the most liberal of news networks, the primary question asked over and over again was about PUMA (Party Unity My Ass, no seriously this is what it stands for) a group that refuses to support Obama, because they love Hillary so much. Every person was asked, “Do you think Obama can win over these Clinton holdouts?” The answer is, “NO”. No one said this, of course, but it’s true. Die hard Nader supporters continued to support him, even though voting for him meant a better chance of Bush being re-elected. Why? Because they’re zealots, fanatics. I don’t mean this as a bad thing. If you’re so passionate about something, or someone, you should support it no matter what. What I don’t understand are the people who say they’re going to vote for John McCain.
Let me get this straight: You loved Hillary because she was a woman, was fighting for health care, women’s issues, helping the middle class and a change from the last eight years. But because she didn’t get the nomination, you’re going to vote for an old white man, who doesn’t believe in health care for all, is stridently pro-life, has voted against giving equal pay to women, wants more tax cuts for the rich, and all but promises to continue Bush’s policies for at least the next four years. I know it’s not politically correct to say so but…THAT’S RETARDED! Rachel Maddow, my 2nd favorite Rachel, put it better when she said it was “Post-rational”. To put it even another way, “it makes the kind of sense, that’s non”
As an American, you have the right to vote however you want. But there was a gay man who said if Hillary didn’t get the nomination he was voting for John McCain. The same McCain who doesn’t believe gay people should be able to adopt a child. With the possibility that the next President will nominate a Supreme Court Justice, do you really want to risk giving McCain that power. Gay Marriage is still a state by state affair, Roe v. Wade is hanging in the balance, why risk it if you think these issues are important? Unless you don’t really care about issues and just picked someone you wanted to win. Now, like a petulant child you’re going to flip over the chess board, because you lost. You don’t have to support Obama, you don’t even have to vote for him, but if you care a lick about politics then voting against your own views is stupid. There is no other way to put it.
Though I have to say, if there was ever a chance that Hillary Voters could be won, it was tonight. Michelle Obama gave a moving speech. She brought tears to many women’s eyes. Her speech essentially said, if you’re looking for a strong, smart woman, here I am. If you want a woman who shares your values, here I am. Michelle essentially showed herself to be Hillary 2.0. Educated. Strong. A mother and a lawyer. A wife and an equal. We know you wanted Hillary, but could we interest you in a Michelle? Of course, we’re dealing with fanatics and no amount of logic will change their minds. I just had to join with Chris Matthews in showing my exasperation at these people.
On MSNBC, the most liberal of news networks, the primary question asked over and over again was about PUMA (Party Unity My Ass, no seriously this is what it stands for) a group that refuses to support Obama, because they love Hillary so much. Every person was asked, “Do you think Obama can win over these Clinton holdouts?” The answer is, “NO”. No one said this, of course, but it’s true. Die hard Nader supporters continued to support him, even though voting for him meant a better chance of Bush being re-elected. Why? Because they’re zealots, fanatics. I don’t mean this as a bad thing. If you’re so passionate about something, or someone, you should support it no matter what. What I don’t understand are the people who say they’re going to vote for John McCain.
Let me get this straight: You loved Hillary because she was a woman, was fighting for health care, women’s issues, helping the middle class and a change from the last eight years. But because she didn’t get the nomination, you’re going to vote for an old white man, who doesn’t believe in health care for all, is stridently pro-life, has voted against giving equal pay to women, wants more tax cuts for the rich, and all but promises to continue Bush’s policies for at least the next four years. I know it’s not politically correct to say so but…THAT’S RETARDED! Rachel Maddow, my 2nd favorite Rachel, put it better when she said it was “Post-rational”. To put it even another way, “it makes the kind of sense, that’s non”
As an American, you have the right to vote however you want. But there was a gay man who said if Hillary didn’t get the nomination he was voting for John McCain. The same McCain who doesn’t believe gay people should be able to adopt a child. With the possibility that the next President will nominate a Supreme Court Justice, do you really want to risk giving McCain that power. Gay Marriage is still a state by state affair, Roe v. Wade is hanging in the balance, why risk it if you think these issues are important? Unless you don’t really care about issues and just picked someone you wanted to win. Now, like a petulant child you’re going to flip over the chess board, because you lost. You don’t have to support Obama, you don’t even have to vote for him, but if you care a lick about politics then voting against your own views is stupid. There is no other way to put it.
Though I have to say, if there was ever a chance that Hillary Voters could be won, it was tonight. Michelle Obama gave a moving speech. She brought tears to many women’s eyes. Her speech essentially said, if you’re looking for a strong, smart woman, here I am. If you want a woman who shares your values, here I am. Michelle essentially showed herself to be Hillary 2.0. Educated. Strong. A mother and a lawyer. A wife and an equal. We know you wanted Hillary, but could we interest you in a Michelle? Of course, we’re dealing with fanatics and no amount of logic will change their minds. I just had to join with Chris Matthews in showing my exasperation at these people.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Saddleback Church Civil Forum Notes
There were many people who didn’t want Obama to attend the Saddleback Civil Forum. They felt he was pandering to the religious right by doing so. From a political point of view, both needed to come here. McCain has problems with Evangelicals, which are a Republican mainstay. Obama still has people who think he’s a Muslim, even though his Reverend spent nearly 4 weeks in the news. Reaching out to religious voters was what they both wanted. What I don’t think anyone would have expected was that the questions, while maybe a little more faith based, were more hard hitting than the ones George Stephanaplous asked during the Obama-Clinton debate. This forum gave you a good view of who these candidates really were.
Now as to who did better, I recommend you go online and find the video for yourself. To quote Obama Girl, “I’m in love with Obama”. I love to hear him speak. He’s thoughtful, articulate, intellectual and I feel he’s actually trying to answer a question as opposed to just telling me what I want to hear. I say this in general, but it was more apparent in this forum, where John McCain seemed to use each question to launch into his talking points. Oh, and mention his service and POW record. Now, I don’t want to diminish the great sacrifice he made for our country. For that matter, let me be clear that I respected John McCain for many years. In 2000, if he had been running against Al Gore…well, I still wouldn’t have voted for him, but I would have felt o.k. had he won. He had integrity. I say had, because you can’t tell it from his current campaign. He says whatever he thinks you want to hear. He panders. He’s abandoned everything he once stood for. McCain-Feingold was legislation he cosponsored that was supposed to reform campaign finance. And now that he’s running for President, he’s using loopholes in his own bill and has a staff filled with lobbyists. But this is a huge digression, back to the Civil Forum.
As I was saying, McCain seemed like he was pandering. Every question asked had an obvious, “this crowd will love it” answer. For instance, if you were asked what your favorite city is, the answer is always the city you’re in. Rick Warren didn’t ask one this simple, but they were close. Abortion, stem cell research, funding faith based programs: these are no-brainers. Mr. Maverick answered each of these exactly as you would expect a politician who abandoned his principles to answer: Abortion-no, stem cell research-no, funding faith based programs-yes. You’re such a maverick!
How did Obama answer? Well, first he answered with nuance. Which means he’ll get creamed in the pundit world. On abortion he did state he was Pro-choice. He actually said “pro-choice”. I almost cheered. No politician ever uses those words, they always skirt around the issue with they’re “against abortion”(these are sarcastic quotes, since they’re really pro-choice) “unless it would endanger the health of the mother, or in instances of rape” These are the only two times politicians will say they are o.k. with abortion. Not Obama, he said that women don’t make this decision lightly and that if we want to reduce abortions, why don’t we do more to help women. How about better health care, health insurance, better jobs, make it easier for women if they want to put the child up for adoption. He didn’t mention better sex education and access to birth control, but I’ll forgive him that. Still his was a tough answer to give when talking to a Minister who phrased the question, when does a baby have rights?
On the issue of marriage, Obama did disappoint me by saying marriage is defined as between one man and one woman, and then bringing up civil unions. I’ve mentioned before that I think it’s ridiculous to use the term civil union, since I can get married and I’m an atheist. My catholic church wouldn’t recognize my marriage(back when I was catholic), because it was done by a justice of the peace. But the state did. That’s all that matters. If a church doesn’t want to recognize gay marriages, they don’t have to. But until atheist marriages are called civil unions, gay marriages should be called marriages. And the church has no say in what the state or federal government decides to call a marriage. Unless we want to consider all divorced couples who remarry civil unions (since the catholic church doesn’t allow divorce) we should allow the people to decide what marriage is.
Aside from that one issue, I think Obama did a great job. When talking about religious persecution (esp., China), he mentioned that we have a difficult time talking tough to China, since we owe them so much money. He also mentioned that we have ceded the moral high ground a little since we aren’t following the rule of law and have used torture. Essentially saying that the world would view us as hypocrites if we were to demand another country stop violating Human rights or international law, since we are doing that very thing.
Finally, in a question that was loaded and obviously tilted against him, he didn’t back down and go for the easy answer. “Do you believe there is evil, and would you…confront it, negotiate with it, or defeat it?” Negotiate with it? If this wasn’t a jab at Obama, I don’t know what is. But Obama answered it beautifully. He said he believed there was evil, but that he believed we must show humility in dealing with it. He warned that too many run the risk of doing evil things in their efforts to combat evil. My mind immediately went to the horrors of Guantanamo Bay and the poor innocent people whose rights we’ve violated all in the name of keeping our country safe. Whose lives are forever shattered by our misguided attempts to deal with terrorism. I don’t know if this is what he meant to invoke or if he was speaking more generally of things like the Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, or even Al-Qaeda. But that’s what it evoked for me. Yes, Obama believes there is evil in the world, and that we should combat it, but we must make sure that when trying to destroy a monster, we don’t become monsters ourselves.
He said what he believed in a forum where it wouldn’t be popular. I believe that’s the mark of a leader. This is the man I want as President of the United States.
Now as to who did better, I recommend you go online and find the video for yourself. To quote Obama Girl, “I’m in love with Obama”. I love to hear him speak. He’s thoughtful, articulate, intellectual and I feel he’s actually trying to answer a question as opposed to just telling me what I want to hear. I say this in general, but it was more apparent in this forum, where John McCain seemed to use each question to launch into his talking points. Oh, and mention his service and POW record. Now, I don’t want to diminish the great sacrifice he made for our country. For that matter, let me be clear that I respected John McCain for many years. In 2000, if he had been running against Al Gore…well, I still wouldn’t have voted for him, but I would have felt o.k. had he won. He had integrity. I say had, because you can’t tell it from his current campaign. He says whatever he thinks you want to hear. He panders. He’s abandoned everything he once stood for. McCain-Feingold was legislation he cosponsored that was supposed to reform campaign finance. And now that he’s running for President, he’s using loopholes in his own bill and has a staff filled with lobbyists. But this is a huge digression, back to the Civil Forum.
As I was saying, McCain seemed like he was pandering. Every question asked had an obvious, “this crowd will love it” answer. For instance, if you were asked what your favorite city is, the answer is always the city you’re in. Rick Warren didn’t ask one this simple, but they were close. Abortion, stem cell research, funding faith based programs: these are no-brainers. Mr. Maverick answered each of these exactly as you would expect a politician who abandoned his principles to answer: Abortion-no, stem cell research-no, funding faith based programs-yes. You’re such a maverick!
How did Obama answer? Well, first he answered with nuance. Which means he’ll get creamed in the pundit world. On abortion he did state he was Pro-choice. He actually said “pro-choice”. I almost cheered. No politician ever uses those words, they always skirt around the issue with they’re “against abortion”(these are sarcastic quotes, since they’re really pro-choice) “unless it would endanger the health of the mother, or in instances of rape” These are the only two times politicians will say they are o.k. with abortion. Not Obama, he said that women don’t make this decision lightly and that if we want to reduce abortions, why don’t we do more to help women. How about better health care, health insurance, better jobs, make it easier for women if they want to put the child up for adoption. He didn’t mention better sex education and access to birth control, but I’ll forgive him that. Still his was a tough answer to give when talking to a Minister who phrased the question, when does a baby have rights?
On the issue of marriage, Obama did disappoint me by saying marriage is defined as between one man and one woman, and then bringing up civil unions. I’ve mentioned before that I think it’s ridiculous to use the term civil union, since I can get married and I’m an atheist. My catholic church wouldn’t recognize my marriage(back when I was catholic), because it was done by a justice of the peace. But the state did. That’s all that matters. If a church doesn’t want to recognize gay marriages, they don’t have to. But until atheist marriages are called civil unions, gay marriages should be called marriages. And the church has no say in what the state or federal government decides to call a marriage. Unless we want to consider all divorced couples who remarry civil unions (since the catholic church doesn’t allow divorce) we should allow the people to decide what marriage is.
Aside from that one issue, I think Obama did a great job. When talking about religious persecution (esp., China), he mentioned that we have a difficult time talking tough to China, since we owe them so much money. He also mentioned that we have ceded the moral high ground a little since we aren’t following the rule of law and have used torture. Essentially saying that the world would view us as hypocrites if we were to demand another country stop violating Human rights or international law, since we are doing that very thing.
Finally, in a question that was loaded and obviously tilted against him, he didn’t back down and go for the easy answer. “Do you believe there is evil, and would you…confront it, negotiate with it, or defeat it?” Negotiate with it? If this wasn’t a jab at Obama, I don’t know what is. But Obama answered it beautifully. He said he believed there was evil, but that he believed we must show humility in dealing with it. He warned that too many run the risk of doing evil things in their efforts to combat evil. My mind immediately went to the horrors of Guantanamo Bay and the poor innocent people whose rights we’ve violated all in the name of keeping our country safe. Whose lives are forever shattered by our misguided attempts to deal with terrorism. I don’t know if this is what he meant to invoke or if he was speaking more generally of things like the Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, or even Al-Qaeda. But that’s what it evoked for me. Yes, Obama believes there is evil in the world, and that we should combat it, but we must make sure that when trying to destroy a monster, we don’t become monsters ourselves.
He said what he believed in a forum where it wouldn’t be popular. I believe that’s the mark of a leader. This is the man I want as President of the United States.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Fair and Balanced
Fair and balanced
My favorite commentator, Rachel Maddow, brought up something that is very near my heart this week: the false idea of balance in journalism. Rachel was commenting on how McCain, and his surrogates, are able to say things about Barack Obama. The media then picks up McCain’s (or surrogates) comments and asks Obama to respond. The media considers this balance. The media, however, never asks if the original comment was even true.
Why doesn’t the media just call something a lie or at the very least wrong. If a person were to go on the air and say that Dallas was the capital of Texas, he would be corrected. If said person were to also claim he was an expert on Texas, he would be laughed off camera. You would not bring in people from Dallas and ask them if they were indeed the capital of Texas. You would not have a debate between Austin and Dallas! This however is how our media treats everything.
When I was a junior in High School, I had a teacher who, when preparing us for the Texas achievement tests (whose name I can’t remember because it’s gone through so many variations) explained a simple fact about writing a paper defending an opinion: facts are facts, opinions are opinions. This seems simple, but apparently isn’t. Who’s the player who scored the most touchdowns in a game? This is a simple fact. Who’s the greatest player to ever play football? This would be an opinion.
Let’s take these last two questions. As to who holds the record for most touchdowns in a game the answer is Ernie Nevers, Dub Jones, and Gale Sayers each tied with 6. That is a fact. Anyone can look it up. Now who’s the greatest player in football? That’s arguable, but even the argument has to be based on facts. If I were to claim the greatest player was Jerry Rice, I would have several facts I could point to in order to back up my opinion. Rice holds career records in touchdowns, receptions and receiving yards. So those would be evidence in his favor. However, if I claimed that he held the record for most touchdowns in his rookie season or that one of the teams he played for was Houston, I would be told that I’m wrong and my ability to participate in this debate would be called into question. In fact, people probably wouldn’t listen to me at all. I would never be allowed to comment on ESPN ever again. But that’s o.k. because I can just go into politics where facts don’t matter.
Now lets use this same analysis on John McCain. McCain claims he has better foreign policy experience than Obama, however, McCain recently mentioned Czechoslovakia as if that country still exists, confused Sunni and Shia, claimed Iraq shared a border with Pakistan, and claimed Iran was training Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Each of these items is a fact that can easily be verified and checked.
Czechoslovakia split in 1993, 15 years ago, and became the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Sunni’s are a religious minority in Iraq that held power there until the US invasion and routinely persecuted the Shia’s. Much of the fighting we see in Iraq is between the Shia and Sunnis. The reason Iran couldn’t be training Al-Qaeda in Iraq was because Iran is Shi’ite and Al-Qaeda is Sunni. And finally Iraq and Pakistan do share a border and it’s called Iran, much like Mexico and Canada share a border called America.
Now if I were on CNN and made these mistakes, no one would take my opinions seriously, however McCain is still a presidential candidate. In fact, Obama still receives more criticism of his foreign policy than does McCain. Hell, Obama receives more criticism than McCain does period.
Now what about a political opinion? Say gas tax holidays or drilling for oil? These things are opinions, but what about the facts behind them. The gas tax holiday would’ve saved no more than .18 a gallon and that money would be taken from government money that goes to support bridges and highways. Which is important, since we just passed the year anniversary of the I 35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis. Which could have been prevented had we had more funding, not less.
And drilling for oil? One of the big myths, or non-facts, being put out by republicans is that we need to drill for more oil and stop getting our oil from foreign sources. The problem with this is, like many lies, is it operates on the fact that you and I don’t understand how the system works. You see, even if we drilled for more oil here in America, and that oil was available tomorrow. It doesn’t just come straight to us. It goes on the world market and we have to buy it back. And since our oil industry isn’t nationalized the money from selling that oil goes to Exxon or whoever drilled for it. And since there are such big loopholes in tax policy, not to mention tax breaks for oil companies, they make lots of money and we keep paying. And, of course, in reality the oil we started drilling for today wouldn’t even go to market for almost 10 years and we might not see price effects till 2030.
And another thing we don’t understand about the oil market is that the price of gas is so high, because our dollar is so weak. If oil were traded in Euros, gas would be cheaper. But since the dollar is currently worth .6 euros or .5 pounds you have to mark it up just to get a fair price. If you want to get 1 euro you need essentially 2 dollars. So if gas were traded in Euros, the cost for gas would probably be only $75 dollars a barrel right now, and our gas would be a lot cheaper. Of course, if trading were to change over to Euros now, it would crash the American dollar. And if you thought times were bad now, that would be worse.
Once again, these are facts that can be looked up and verified. The journalist shouldn’t bring in opposing viewpoints as if these opinions had actual merit, but ask these questions themselves. If a statement doesn’t pass a fact-check, it shouldn’t be presented as such.
A small list of websites I visited to write this. Not by any means comprehensive but ones that had the most concentration of points I made.
On media bias towards candidates
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story.
For a short history of the gasoline tax.
http://www.artba.org/economics_research/reports/gas_tax_history.htm
For a short article on the correlation between dollar and oil
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/11/b258795.html
For info on off shore drilling (it’s an editorial, I know, but it presents the case clearest)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/opinion/19thu1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
I also used Wikipedia and ESPN.com for my research on football. Also, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann’s programs were used as performance enhancers in the writing of this.
My favorite commentator, Rachel Maddow, brought up something that is very near my heart this week: the false idea of balance in journalism. Rachel was commenting on how McCain, and his surrogates, are able to say things about Barack Obama. The media then picks up McCain’s (or surrogates) comments and asks Obama to respond. The media considers this balance. The media, however, never asks if the original comment was even true.
Why doesn’t the media just call something a lie or at the very least wrong. If a person were to go on the air and say that Dallas was the capital of Texas, he would be corrected. If said person were to also claim he was an expert on Texas, he would be laughed off camera. You would not bring in people from Dallas and ask them if they were indeed the capital of Texas. You would not have a debate between Austin and Dallas! This however is how our media treats everything.
When I was a junior in High School, I had a teacher who, when preparing us for the Texas achievement tests (whose name I can’t remember because it’s gone through so many variations) explained a simple fact about writing a paper defending an opinion: facts are facts, opinions are opinions. This seems simple, but apparently isn’t. Who’s the player who scored the most touchdowns in a game? This is a simple fact. Who’s the greatest player to ever play football? This would be an opinion.
Let’s take these last two questions. As to who holds the record for most touchdowns in a game the answer is Ernie Nevers, Dub Jones, and Gale Sayers each tied with 6. That is a fact. Anyone can look it up. Now who’s the greatest player in football? That’s arguable, but even the argument has to be based on facts. If I were to claim the greatest player was Jerry Rice, I would have several facts I could point to in order to back up my opinion. Rice holds career records in touchdowns, receptions and receiving yards. So those would be evidence in his favor. However, if I claimed that he held the record for most touchdowns in his rookie season or that one of the teams he played for was Houston, I would be told that I’m wrong and my ability to participate in this debate would be called into question. In fact, people probably wouldn’t listen to me at all. I would never be allowed to comment on ESPN ever again. But that’s o.k. because I can just go into politics where facts don’t matter.
Now lets use this same analysis on John McCain. McCain claims he has better foreign policy experience than Obama, however, McCain recently mentioned Czechoslovakia as if that country still exists, confused Sunni and Shia, claimed Iraq shared a border with Pakistan, and claimed Iran was training Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Each of these items is a fact that can easily be verified and checked.
Czechoslovakia split in 1993, 15 years ago, and became the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Sunni’s are a religious minority in Iraq that held power there until the US invasion and routinely persecuted the Shia’s. Much of the fighting we see in Iraq is between the Shia and Sunnis. The reason Iran couldn’t be training Al-Qaeda in Iraq was because Iran is Shi’ite and Al-Qaeda is Sunni. And finally Iraq and Pakistan do share a border and it’s called Iran, much like Mexico and Canada share a border called America.
Now if I were on CNN and made these mistakes, no one would take my opinions seriously, however McCain is still a presidential candidate. In fact, Obama still receives more criticism of his foreign policy than does McCain. Hell, Obama receives more criticism than McCain does period.
Now what about a political opinion? Say gas tax holidays or drilling for oil? These things are opinions, but what about the facts behind them. The gas tax holiday would’ve saved no more than .18 a gallon and that money would be taken from government money that goes to support bridges and highways. Which is important, since we just passed the year anniversary of the I 35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis. Which could have been prevented had we had more funding, not less.
And drilling for oil? One of the big myths, or non-facts, being put out by republicans is that we need to drill for more oil and stop getting our oil from foreign sources. The problem with this is, like many lies, is it operates on the fact that you and I don’t understand how the system works. You see, even if we drilled for more oil here in America, and that oil was available tomorrow. It doesn’t just come straight to us. It goes on the world market and we have to buy it back. And since our oil industry isn’t nationalized the money from selling that oil goes to Exxon or whoever drilled for it. And since there are such big loopholes in tax policy, not to mention tax breaks for oil companies, they make lots of money and we keep paying. And, of course, in reality the oil we started drilling for today wouldn’t even go to market for almost 10 years and we might not see price effects till 2030.
And another thing we don’t understand about the oil market is that the price of gas is so high, because our dollar is so weak. If oil were traded in Euros, gas would be cheaper. But since the dollar is currently worth .6 euros or .5 pounds you have to mark it up just to get a fair price. If you want to get 1 euro you need essentially 2 dollars. So if gas were traded in Euros, the cost for gas would probably be only $75 dollars a barrel right now, and our gas would be a lot cheaper. Of course, if trading were to change over to Euros now, it would crash the American dollar. And if you thought times were bad now, that would be worse.
Once again, these are facts that can be looked up and verified. The journalist shouldn’t bring in opposing viewpoints as if these opinions had actual merit, but ask these questions themselves. If a statement doesn’t pass a fact-check, it shouldn’t be presented as such.
A small list of websites I visited to write this. Not by any means comprehensive but ones that had the most concentration of points I made.
On media bias towards candidates
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story.
For a short history of the gasoline tax.
http://www.artba.org/economics_research/reports/gas_tax_history.htm
For a short article on the correlation between dollar and oil
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/11/b258795.html
For info on off shore drilling (it’s an editorial, I know, but it presents the case clearest)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/opinion/19thu1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
I also used Wikipedia and ESPN.com for my research on football. Also, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann’s programs were used as performance enhancers in the writing of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)