Alright, I'm going to make this a bit like a diary entry, just to mental sort, so not all might make sense.
So last week's discussions got me thinking about what necessities should be private sector versus government controlled.
Republican's say it is socialist, or its not providing people with enough options, to have medicaid/medicare or Obama care. Medical insurance should not be a government run program. People should not be required to pay for that kind of stuff with their taxes.
Then I think about how a class mate of mine pointed out that we already do that with police or transportation. Imagine privatizing MTA and letting people choose what kind of transportation or privatizing police enforcement. That last one sounds scary does it not?
On the other hand, there is a video i posted about what Newt Gingrich said about great innovations beings produced in the private sector. So... I admit, there needs to be a private sector. Great things come from companies or people being able to choose what they do.
However, people are greedy.
Another thing I noticed that there are so many private companies that do not produce anything. The people who actually make innovations are not the one's profiting. Companies used to be owned by the people making products.
The small pizza place across the street from me for example. A family owns it and the people who make the money are the ones working in the kitchen. It's not the same way with Round Table. Its not the same with huge companies that make things to profit rather than making it to please people.
Companies are started to give people what they want and what they need, that is their essence or it used to be. The idea about a strong private sector is great it just does not work because people become greedy.
Isin't one of the first rules about running a successful business 'its not about the company, its about the customer'? I do not believe people working behind medical insurance feel that way.
And this leads me to my point. Ideas of private sectors providing good quality and competition is unrealistic. In the end they are just going to want to profit.
The idea of a state run agency that provides medical insurance is also scary because people are going to want to profit.
I find it very funny that Republicans fear big government and corruption because they seem the ones most corrupted by power. I always feel like people are paranoid about things when they are already guilty themselves.
Anyways to conclude. Medical attention is a need, just like the other things we pay for in our taxes like police, street lights, infrastructure, transportation, food stamps for some, etc. It would be far to dangerous to privatize some of those things and like those things, medical care is too important to put into companies' hands.
Should their be private research facilities that make great discoveries and cures? Sure, that's awesome. But not immediate necessary services.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Videos for Presidential Debates
Commentary on political strategy and how Cain is being snipped away one bit at a time. This is also commentary on what this next debate may mean for Cain.
Newt and Herman giving CEO and private sector advice. Cain advising that CEOs need to be more involved and Gingrich is giving his outsider perspective. He says the private sector creates brilliant innovations that the government should use and support the growth of.
Obama vs. Mccain on how they would solve the financial crisis.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Saturday Night Live GOP Debate
this summarizes things nicely, and its so much less confusing than the news
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Associations and non-journalistic media
A while ago I wrote about Romney's campaign strategy. He does not wear a tie, he comes off as cool and calm, and his central message is that he can help solve our economic crisis because he's a businessman.
That's his thing.
Cain is known for being a non-politician, meaning he was not part of creating the problem, and that he is a business man.
Perry is known for his job creation and how he's the best at it.
Ron Paul is the anti-big government crab and he's the most different out of the G.O.P candidates.
I'm being really vague for a reason, my point is that after seeing the candidates a million times, my mind can hardly really hold on to accurate details. The lasting impressions are what everything amounts to, and what candidates have repeated over and over again.
At the end of the day, I will not remember specifics, but a general gist. The candidates that are most successful are the ones that are able to portray a single strong message and have appealing "essence" or lasting impression that is created with repetition and singularity.
I think Obama is the best at this. In his last campaign he was the new, young, 'yes we can' man. He wanted to help people and really connected with them. He was a pleasant person, and he seemed completely disassociated with the administration that got us into a financial crisis worse than the Great Depression.
People watch comedy shows like Saturday Night Live, the Colbert Report, and the Daily Show. The public trusts these people more because they're more like normal people and not politicians. Also they are skeptical and funny. Negativity or scrutiny sometimes feels more accurate.
Anyways people listen to them despite their journalistic accuracy.
Saturday night live often has clips where it imitates candidates. It criticizes and mocks them and people love it. In order to recreate the characters they have to take what is best known about them (so people will understand its them) and make it funny. The point is not to be accurate, but to generalize the candidates behavior and give them a funnier version of it.
In the last presidential election. Barack Obama's speech making abilities were highlighted, the way he talks, but he was certainly not made fun of as much as Sarah Palin. Tina Fey killed Palin's chances all because she did such a great job mocking her.
I remember how much attention SNL got for those clips and it really worked against the G.O.P.
This election I cannot help but this that public comedy shows will work against the G.O.P. The general essence of the candidates will be made to seem repulsive in comparison to Obama's.
The impact the media's like SNL is so powerful because they offer a non-political standpoint and say things the real media can't say.
That's his thing.
Cain is known for being a non-politician, meaning he was not part of creating the problem, and that he is a business man.
Perry is known for his job creation and how he's the best at it.
Ron Paul is the anti-big government crab and he's the most different out of the G.O.P candidates.
I'm being really vague for a reason, my point is that after seeing the candidates a million times, my mind can hardly really hold on to accurate details. The lasting impressions are what everything amounts to, and what candidates have repeated over and over again.
At the end of the day, I will not remember specifics, but a general gist. The candidates that are most successful are the ones that are able to portray a single strong message and have appealing "essence" or lasting impression that is created with repetition and singularity.
I think Obama is the best at this. In his last campaign he was the new, young, 'yes we can' man. He wanted to help people and really connected with them. He was a pleasant person, and he seemed completely disassociated with the administration that got us into a financial crisis worse than the Great Depression.
People watch comedy shows like Saturday Night Live, the Colbert Report, and the Daily Show. The public trusts these people more because they're more like normal people and not politicians. Also they are skeptical and funny. Negativity or scrutiny sometimes feels more accurate.
Anyways people listen to them despite their journalistic accuracy.
Saturday night live often has clips where it imitates candidates. It criticizes and mocks them and people love it. In order to recreate the characters they have to take what is best known about them (so people will understand its them) and make it funny. The point is not to be accurate, but to generalize the candidates behavior and give them a funnier version of it.
In the last presidential election. Barack Obama's speech making abilities were highlighted, the way he talks, but he was certainly not made fun of as much as Sarah Palin. Tina Fey killed Palin's chances all because she did such a great job mocking her.
I remember how much attention SNL got for those clips and it really worked against the G.O.P.
This election I cannot help but this that public comedy shows will work against the G.O.P. The general essence of the candidates will be made to seem repulsive in comparison to Obama's.
The impact the media's like SNL is so powerful because they offer a non-political standpoint and say things the real media can't say.
Media's role in politics - Watergate and Operation SWIFT
Watergate Scandal and Operation Swift
Here are two scandals in which the media was involved and played a key role. The first scandal was when the media revealed that Nixon had been stealing money for his campaign, which lead to him being impeached.
The second incident, Operation Swift was when the media published an article that government begged it not to. It informed the american public that the government had gained access to database of the public's financial records to catch terrorist activity.
In the first case, i think most would agree that the media played the protagonist in which it informed people of things they needed to know. In the second, it is not so clear and not everyone will agree that the media was right for publishing that story. This is what I want to discuss.
The Watergate scandal reveals the need for intense Journalism. During this scandal Nixon was being investigated for stealing money to fund his election. Link were made between a robbery into the white house and a slush fund.
Woodward and Bernstein, the two journalists working writing about this case made links and even accusations. The public's opinion of the media declined after they heard about these accusations which basically called Nixon a thief that was covering up crime.
Afterwards when it turned out to be true, Woodward and Bernstein were hailed as great reporters and it reminded the role of the media in elections: to inform the public of things they need to know and assume everyone is horrible and tell people about it.
[side question - they became obsessed with this story, could they have published it out of ego?]
Like I said before to me, its obvious that they still did a really good job.
Operation swift however, I feel different about.
After 9/11 the government gained access to a database of financial records called SWIFT. In this database they could everyone's records. They were using it to look at international money transfers between people in the United States and terrorist organization overseas.
It worked, they made many arrests but there was still one problem: did they have a right to access the public's financial records, and did they abuse it? Technically they have a right to it, but only of records that have to do with terrorist activity, but that power can be abused.
The media got a hold of this information and published a story about it. The government begged it not to because the efficacy of the operation depended on it being a secret. If it were not a secret, terrorists with find other means of doing what they need to do and the guilty persons would not get caught.
This is where I begin to question the role of media in politics. It framed the government with imposing on my privacy. See, some people would say they they doing exactly what they should be doing. But me, if a government needs that access and needs to be private about it, to protect me and do it's job- then I don't care.
It is not the media's role to reveal information about security and jeopardize government operations.
FOLLOW UP TO SIDE NOTE: did they publish this story to be the first or show off to the public they were on their side? Or did they genuinely feel that this needed to be published?
Do I want to know that Herman Cain is harassing women? YEAH! Good job media!
Here are two scandals in which the media was involved and played a key role. The first scandal was when the media revealed that Nixon had been stealing money for his campaign, which lead to him being impeached.
The second incident, Operation Swift was when the media published an article that government begged it not to. It informed the american public that the government had gained access to database of the public's financial records to catch terrorist activity.
In the first case, i think most would agree that the media played the protagonist in which it informed people of things they needed to know. In the second, it is not so clear and not everyone will agree that the media was right for publishing that story. This is what I want to discuss.
The Watergate scandal reveals the need for intense Journalism. During this scandal Nixon was being investigated for stealing money to fund his election. Link were made between a robbery into the white house and a slush fund.
Woodward and Bernstein, the two journalists working writing about this case made links and even accusations. The public's opinion of the media declined after they heard about these accusations which basically called Nixon a thief that was covering up crime.
Afterwards when it turned out to be true, Woodward and Bernstein were hailed as great reporters and it reminded the role of the media in elections: to inform the public of things they need to know and assume everyone is horrible and tell people about it.
[side question - they became obsessed with this story, could they have published it out of ego?]
Like I said before to me, its obvious that they still did a really good job.
Operation swift however, I feel different about.
After 9/11 the government gained access to a database of financial records called SWIFT. In this database they could everyone's records. They were using it to look at international money transfers between people in the United States and terrorist organization overseas.
It worked, they made many arrests but there was still one problem: did they have a right to access the public's financial records, and did they abuse it? Technically they have a right to it, but only of records that have to do with terrorist activity, but that power can be abused.
The media got a hold of this information and published a story about it. The government begged it not to because the efficacy of the operation depended on it being a secret. If it were not a secret, terrorists with find other means of doing what they need to do and the guilty persons would not get caught.
This is where I begin to question the role of media in politics. It framed the government with imposing on my privacy. See, some people would say they they doing exactly what they should be doing. But me, if a government needs that access and needs to be private about it, to protect me and do it's job- then I don't care.
It is not the media's role to reveal information about security and jeopardize government operations.
FOLLOW UP TO SIDE NOTE: did they publish this story to be the first or show off to the public they were on their side? Or did they genuinely feel that this needed to be published?
Do I want to know that Herman Cain is harassing women? YEAH! Good job media!
Videos of Social Media Impact on Elections
Ok, not to brag but this one is a gem. This is Herman Cain commenting on the media's inaccuracy and irresponsibility. He says that the media is the toughest part about this election so far. Afterwards a commentator makes a point to say that if Herman Cain does not like the scrutiny of the media, then maybe he chose the wrong profession. Lastly they air a video an anti-left campaign video saying that media's revealing of the sexual harassment charges was a tactic.
This is the head of a news organization doing investigative journalism and talks about the content and what sort of media there is and how it is used.
THIS VIDEO WAS NOT EMBEDDIBLE but i really wanted to throw it in.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Obamafor/start/870/stop/1000
But I had to put it in. During this Youth Summit, it looked like a meeting with youth leaders, of sorts, to discuss re-electing Obama. They were all volunteers who were set on re-electing him and discussed the campaign. What stood out to me about this entire meeting, not just this clip, was how it was held. It was streamed online, people could participate without being there, students could tweet questions, facebook groups were mentioned, and the first way mentioned to get in and help was register online to do so. It just involved so many social media aspects which the youth today are so attached to. Barack Obama I feel like, has made the best connection to the youth out of all the candidates, because he uses social media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)