Graduation

Just wanted to thank Dr. Anderson for his great advice...a political communication minor. I've thoroughly enjoyed the classes in the minor, such as Scom 353. I enjoyed the open, relaxed discussion forum. Thanks for a great semester. The political communication minor has kept me well informed and up to speed on most political moments throughout the past two years. In this busy time of our life it's cool to be able to discuss politics and current events in a classroom...almost forcing us to reflect on the world (off our beautiful campus). 

Good luck to the class of 2008 and thanks again JMU. 

NPR: Sex or Gender

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyID=19128143 

Just adding to the previous blog about the race vs. gender topic...I recently listened to the NPR link above. The radio link asks the question...who's turn is it now? 

I believe these identity politics (where your education or family might have taught you to use sex/race as a political standard) is old fashioned. I think, I hope, today's younger generation is mostly looking at policies while making the 2008 political decisions. I think older generations, one's that may have lived through the struggles of women's suffrage and civil rights battles for African Americans, hold onto identity politics more than our younger generations who simply read about the historical challenges. 

I think it is cool that African Americans and women began a battle together in the 1900's, and today we see them once more making history together. Abolitionism and feminism have partnered throughout history, and I'm thrilled to see the progress has continued. 

So to answer the question: Who's turn is it now...who is more deserving? 

I don't think it has anything to do with race. I think it has to do with experience, charisma, and the campaigns' media strategy.  May the best candidate win...and let race and gender not be the reason why. 

Redemption

The subject of "political movies and their role of informing citizens" has come full circle and tied itself to our new subject of "conspiracy". Last night I watched, "Redemption" a movie that focuses on radical muslim terrorists in Northern Africa. With increasingly sophisticated explosives, our government takes a United States, NYU graduate hostage. He is believed to have been in contact with the terrorist group via phone calls. 

This movie is parallel to a resent political debate...the United States use of torture, Guatonoma Bay prisoners, and the rights of US citizens that are held. Do these detainees  deserve to be protected by the Bill of Rights and should they be given the right to Due Process: right to an attorney, a right to know the charges brought against them, a right to a public and speedy trial? 

I thought this movie introduced the public to the inhuman elements that these detainees may be facing. The victim (detainee) boarded an airplane in Africa and was removed at the airport in DC--his flight record was erased. CONSPIRACY--COVER UP. He was brought to an unknown location and the interrogation began.   I just thought it was interesting how these two subjects tied together. The movie also demonstrated waterboarding--a controversial debate topic in our political sphere right now. 

A stimulating movie...very timly. Check it out. In class you asked if anyone believed in conspiracies....well I believe that we don't know all the details about the jails which hold detainees and that possibly there are individuals covering up inhuman actions. I know too little about the subject, but I enjoyed having my eyes opened a little more and learning about this subject. I do think movies sometimes have a place in society to teach, if they so choose.   

Post Your Own Political Video!

I was just watching MSNBC and saw an interview about VoterVoter.com. This website allows individuals to post homemade political advertisements on the web. According to the MSNBC interview, the website makes sure that the video is technically sufficient and that the claims made are valid..this adds a bit more credibility to the posted videos (as opposed to a website like YouTube). 

Check it out. VoterVoter.com is a cool website that allows the public sphere to engage in today's political arena. Old school "bowling alley and town hall" politics are know being combined with citizen involvement through the world wide web! I enjoy seeing and hearing the political perspective of other citizens.  With anything, we have to receive these political messages carefully and mentally participate. It would be useful to know a little about the producer of the video...but for now, we can cautiously receive the message and make our own political judgments. Let me know what you think. 

 

2008 Byrd Symposium, "This war is about our influence in an important region"

Tonight I attended the 2008 Byrd Symposium, experts compared and contrasted former president George H. W. Bush and, the current, President George W. Bush. 

Bluntly stated, one of the experts stated that weapons of mass destruction and democracy are simply "convenient rhetorical arguments that helped rally public support." Once again, this SCOM 353 issue of ideographs has resurfaced. 

According to "Media Politics" by Shanto Lyengar and Jennifer A. McGrady, Going Public is "a strategy used by presidents and other politicians to promote their policies by appealing to the American public for support. If a president enjoys strong public support, that president creates an important bargaining advantage and is capable of persuading congressional members to rally in support of him/her." 

According to this evening's symposium experts, The Bush Administration used common, positive ideographs to inform the public and gather support. The public was fed a message it was likely to support. Looking back now, we know there are no weapons of mass destruction. The public was misinformed...but was this intentional and did this message simply make it easier for the Bush Administration to carry out its plan? 

The sad thing is though, according to these experts, this war is not about Weapons of Mass Destruction or Democracy...this war is about our environment and about the United States' influence in an important region. According to the experts, this war and the wars to follow will all focus on "Fossil Fuels"; also when given a choice, the current administration has consistently focused on expansion instead of conservation. 

While our SCOM 353 class saw that IRAQ was a hot topic in the recent State of the Union Address...it is apparent that the underlying issue of the Environment will be an important issue for the next president elect. 

Also, the market demand must change. We as a public must take our own steps towards change. Congress acts as our representatives...if we don't demand a change, one will never come. 

Which candidate will be the most influential in resolving this crisis? 

Governor Spitzer Scandal Sparks an Important Media Discussion

This evening I was watching MSNBC--I literally jumped off the couch and came running to this blog to publish my thoughts. 

This link will lead you to an interesting article which discusses the topic of sex slaves in the United States: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22083762/ 

While many find this topic offensive and are unable to watch, I am relieved that the issue is being investigated and reported on. I think that a positive has developed from New York's Governor Spitzer's sex ring scandal--people are talking about the issue. 

What I gathered from the MSNBC segment is that this problem is not new, and it is not small. Women are often misled into spa massage parlors or restaurants, expecting to find the American Dream, a luring ideograph.  While seeking quality work and prosperity, these women find quit the opposite. They are forced to participate in sexual acts with men (no women specified in the segment). These victims have little or no money and no way out. I am disgusted that this exists. I am especially disappointed that it has a presence in the United States. 

As we discussed in class, it is interesting how media has changed. Looking back at Thomas Jefferson and his "sex slaves", I am happy that reporters today are not overlooking this crucial issue. It is imperative that reporters bring this topic into our public discourse. Although it may make some uncomfortable to discuss, it must be addressed. Much like myself, I am sure many educated individuals never imagined that this could occur in the United States. 

The segment and link also explore sex slave situations abroad. While the domestic sex problem seemed to focus on girls about 18 or older, the abroad situations heavily focus on girls much younger...some 15, some 12, and even some that are 8 years old. Take a look, it's worth your time. This topic certainly deserves some attention. 

Commemorative Debate: Charting A New Course Toward Peace in the Middle East

As requested, I will post my reaction to the Commemorative Debate. 

I really enjoyed the opening comments about debate as audience participation. I agree that debate is only successful when someone is listening and evaluating the claims made. Ideally this participatory element will lead to new ideas and societal improvements. 

I thought it was a little difficult to be a major participant due to the fact that I know little about the middle east and the role of the United States abroad. I must admit, that I have not made a conscience effort to track foreign politics as much as domestic politics. And as we know, the media covers very few foreign policy issues and many domestic issues. I found myself thirsty for background knowledge and expertise. If anything, the debate exemplified that the general public must make an effort to seek news regarding international/foreign policies. 

It was intriguing to hear the debaters use terms like rally around the flag, an ideograph  that SCOM 353 actually addressed at the beginning of the semester. 

In sum, I gathered that the negative side was opposed to the new dialogues and favored the status quo. But my question is, "If we shouldn't start a conversation/dialogue about these critical issues, than what should we do?" It is easy to say no and not give an alternative suggestion. I understand that due to the nature of a debate the negative side is merely expected to oppose, but it left me wondering, "If we shouldn't engage with Iran with dialogue, then how and what are we doing?" 

Also, I just wanted to point out that I found the debate format a little hypocritical. Throughout the debate one affirmative individual suggested that the "free exchange of ideas" is necessary and we should allow "moderates to have a voice in open debate." Immediately following, the debaters brutally and insensitively cut off one another (time constraints make this understandable in a college debate format.) But in real life, where debate will hopefully resolve conflict and prevent war, I don't think this type of hostile Q&A is beneficial. 

Ultimately, I know little about the debate subject, but I hope in the least that the United States has opened a dialogue. It seems to me that conversing  and open discussions are the first, and most vital step to solving any problem.