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. 

March 11th, Lecture Continued...

As our class discussed the "Permanent Campaign" I could not help but concluded that a politician's intentions and goals have somewhat shifted from those of our founding fathers. To my understanding, the founding fathers had careers separate from the government. While many were land owners or farmers, their legislative goal was to try to improve life for the colonists. 

Today, our representatives are generally focused on their position in Congress. This position is their new job. While most probably have the funds to support a family without this position, most representatives still find this position vitally important and seek reelection. 

So, I cannot help but compare these representatives to the individuals in our class. Currently, we are all running a Permanent Campaign. We are tweaking our resumes and deciding which employer should hear certain specifics. Not for all, but for most, life can be strategic. We have a plan. I know where I want to be in ten years and I am taking steps to get myself there. Like politicians, we generally don't job hunt on a whim. There is usually, for most, a plan. As college students, we are already running our own permanent campaign for our careers. 

I don't think this term strictly applies to political spheres, I think that in our society, citizens are generally campiagning themselves to get ahead. That is what makes the citizens of the USA, in part, individualistic and competitive in nature. 

Also, we must consider the influence of media. Obviously we (353 class) are not yet being followed around with cameras. The media certainly intensifies the permanent campaign. Maybe the media, and the publics growing concern/interest, can be linked to the change in political behavior (from the founding fathers.) As the public is now watching 24/7, politicians have no choice but to commit full time to their representative position. We as a public can hold them more accountable with the help of our media watch dogs. Everyone is always running a permanent campaign, the difference the public is constantly monitoring the representatives'.