Well, it's been quite awhile since I've updated, and quite a lot has changed...and stayed the same...in politics.

Although I admittedly lean right, which I think may be fairly apparent from my blog, I find myself taking a step back as super Tuesday quickly approaches.

I listened to President Bush's final State of the Union Address Monday night, and I was pleasantly surprised. Admittedly, he has little to no hope of achieving any of his departing wishes with a Democratic Congress and minimal support from the public, yet he said what he felt he needed to say, and even threw a few punches toward the left. With the beating he has endured over the past seven years, I say they were long overdue.

He did not mince words when it came to the war in Iraq, his pride in our military, and his trust in General Petraeus.

We have had a president in office for eight years who had to lead this country through one of the greatest tragedies in American history. He had to make a decision on how to deal with 9/11, and he did just that with compassion and fervor. He also never second guessed his choice and willingly forged ahead.

What was the best possible solution to 9/11 and the perilous situation in Iraq and Afghanistan? I would like to meet the one man or woman who thinks they have that answer.

As for our troops overseas, I thought Bush's statement directed toward them was one that they, as well as Congress, needed to hear.

"This evening, I want to speak directly to our men and women on the frontlines. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen: In the past year, you have done everything we have asked of you, and more. Our Nation is grateful for your courage. We are proud of your accomplishments. And tonight in this hallowed chamber, with the American people as our witness, we make you a solemn pledge: In the fight ahead, you will have all you need to protect our Nation. And I ask the Congress to meet its responsibilities to these brave men and women by fully funding our troops."

There's no better way to show our support for our troops than by providing them with what they need from artillery to a wash cloth.

I pray for our troops every single day, and now I pray for a leader for our nation that will find a way to lessen the demand for our services in Iraq and Afghanistan without erasing the accomplishments our troops have achieved. I also pray for a leader who understands the severity of the threats against our country and is willing to continue to fight those who want to hurt the people of this free country.

November 2008 is going to be the most important election in my lifetime, and I am proud to say that I will be able to cast my vote toward the candidate who I believe will fulfill my dreams as an American citizen, and support our military who allowed and granted me that privilege.

Transcript of the 2008 State of the Union Address

Today I would like to blog about the disparity of news coverage between every single presidential candidate, both Republican and Democrat, and Hillary Clinton.

The advantages Clinton has enjoyed, just by announcing her candidacy are astounding.
1- She is a woman.
2- She is married to a former president who is perhaps one of the most charismatic ,yet corrupt and immoral, but still appealing politicians of our time.
3- She has been in the political spotlight for years, and more so than any other candidate, as she enjoyed her position as First Lady for eight years in the White House and then not surprisingly snagged a seat in the Senate representing a state she did not even live in.

What I would like to know, is where would she be without these internal advantages she received on a silver platter?

Generating publicity, distinguishing yourself from the other candidates, establishing a firm stance on one issue or another, and painting a portrait of yourself are all inarguably the most important first steps in running for president.

Hillary received all of these things gift wrapped with a bow.

Because of these advantages, Hillary has been in the spotlight since day one, and she shows no signs of slowing down.

She has hit little to no bumps in her campaign, and her poll numbers have never dipped more than slightly.

And why is this? Because we have an image of Hillary in our head. Most Americans either love her or hate her. And enough people love her that she need make no effort to swing the vote of those who express the opposite emotion.

The only time she has stumbled on our path to victory is when she swung nervously back and forth between Spitzer's immigration policy of providing all illegal immigrants with driver's licenses. Her numbers dipped because surprisingly she was confronted with a real issue and provided no real response.

Surprising? Not really. The debates I have watched thus far are superficial and annoying. Questions are planted repeatedly, campaigns are caught after the fact, and the candidate's deny their involvement.

The race for the presidency is a race of who we hear most about. Hillary Clinton is winning that race by miles.

Refreshing

I found a blog entry linked from the Daily Kos which was a refreshing read. The writer is a democratic female under the name "ProgressForAmerica." The blog entitled, "Why, as a Reasonable Women, I Cannot Vote for Hillary Clinton" voiced the writer's respect for Clinton along with her doubts concerning Clinton's run for the presidency.

Instead of ranting and raving about the failures of the Bush administration and the Republican party in general, the writer points out the faults of the Democratic party throughout the past 15 years which have curbed their attempts at the White House.

I was surprised that I found the entry on the Daily Kos, but I'm glad that I stumbled across it on a site that I usually not prone to exploring. It just goes to show the extensiveness of the internet as a medium of information.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/22/165642/08

Harvard Youth Follows Campaign Trail in New Hampshire

I was reading a political blog on The New York Times website entitled "The Caucus" when I came across an entry that described the actions of a group of Harvard students who are participating in an academic project called Campus Voices. The students are attending campaign events, interviewing young and older voters and campaign staff, writing about these experiences and filming some stories in New Hampshire.

After I clicked through the site, I came across many unique features I have not found on other political web sites. First of all, I liked that Campus Voices acts like a detached third party. It is not the candidate and the staff talking up the candidate and the staff, and it isn't't the news media talking about the candidate. It is young people talking about their first hand observations and genuine impressions of the candidates and their campaigns.

It has first hand interviews with people who support both Democrat and Republican candidates. It is informative, but also personal because the students blog about their day to day experiences and impressions.

The site is definitely one that I will bookmark and access as a genuine source of Election 2008 news.

Campus Voices

Quotes of the Week

I've been thinking about a way to spice up my blogging every week, and I believe I have a new feature that may inspire me to keep writing, and hopefully you to keep reading.

Every week, the media broadcasts quotes from celebrities, politicians, and other prominent figures in society saying something controversial, opinionated, and sometimes, just downright stupid. The majority of the time, these comments are critical of the Bush administration, the Iraq war, or our country in general.

For this blog post, and hopefully from here on out, I will try to compile these quotes (along with other controversial occurrences like movie or song releases) from both the left and the right (to the best of my ability...although I admittedly lean right) which stir up controversy and make the American public reevaluate whether they would like to continue to invest financially or support this particular public figure whether it be a movie star or a politician.

Here a few that I have heard this week:

Rosie O'Donnell: "You'd have to literally, I think, to get impeached, take the Constitution out of the museum, put it on the floor and have George Bush literally take a dump on it. That is the only way that we are going to get people to understand the magnitude of what he has done." (Speech over the weekend at Hunter College)

Mark Cuban: "You see, Mr. [Bill] O'Reilly thinks that movies are a tool used by terrorists, and any Anti American faction as motivation to hate us and everything we stand for even more than they already do. I'm not sure that terrorists and those who are Anti American need any more motivation , or if they are even capable of hating us even more than they do. We are at war. There are people willing to be convinced to blow themselves up to kill as many of us as possible. Anytime, anywhere." (Blog entry concerning the new film "Redacted" financed by Cuban and to be released in theaters soon)

When I toured The Daily News Leader in Staunton, Virginia last fall, we were introduced to a contributing cartoonist who they could not afford to keep on staff, but regularly contributed to the paper. He had drawn and published the cartoon of the crying Hokie mascot of Virginia Tech surrounded by the mascots of neighboring Virginia universities after the 2007 Virginia Tech tragedy. The cartoon was picked up by many newspapers nationwide.

I know that cartoon touched me and many other students nationwide who displayed it on their Facebook and Myspace pages. I had never before thought of cartoonists as journalists until I saw that cartoon. However, they tell stories just as well, if not better, than an article you could read about the same subject.

Therefore, I just wanted to quickly post a link to a cartoon web site I found with a political twist.

Daryl Cagle's Professional Cartoonist's Index

Since we've been talking about the importance of the "art" of newspaper layout design, I decided this week to investigate the websites of several cable news outlets and newspapers.

I don't have that much experience with web layout design, but from what I've learned in my multimedia production, web communication, and the introductory SMAD classes, I think I get the gist of it. As a constant visitor of such sites, I know what turns me on and turns me off.

First up...FOXnews.com
This site had one main photo of an Islamic woman on the right side of the page which immediately grabbed my attention. From there, my eye was directed in a clockwise fashion to the right and I was hit by an advertisement exactly the same size as the first photo. An immediate turn-off. I could barely tell which one was the story and which one was the ad. Then I began my neverending scroll down the page. Thumbnail photos were everywhere under the different categories found in a traditional newspaper. More ads could be found on the right hand side of the page as well. Fox is known for the "Fox Effect" on television which is in your face moving, loud, and large images and sounds. I could see this clearly reflected in their web page.

Second up...NYTimes.com
I don't have a subscription to the NYTimes, so I'm not sure if their web page is a direct replica of their newspaper layout design. However, it is undoubtedly of the same importance considering so many who do not live in or near New York access one of the nation's greatest newspapers online. Immediately, my eye was drawn to a photo of Afghans standing over and looking down at several coffins adorned with flowers and photos of those lost. From there, my eye didn't really have a clear path to follow. On the right hand side, below the main photo there was an automobile ad proportional to the Afghan photo similar to the layout reflected on FOXnews. Unfortunately, when I rolled my mouse over it, it became even larger, almost taking up the width of the page. The page also included several thumbnail photos, but they were contained to the middle of the page, and the links to the other areas of interest where listed neatly at the bottom of the page. I did not have to do nearly as much scrolling.

Lastly...CNN.com
Definitely my least favorite. Honestly, it looks like that our class could design a page like this ourselves. Nothing on the entire page drew me in or made me want to explore any of the stories. The main photo they had on the page was on the left top hand side. It was bland and boring and almost looked pixelated. My eye had nowhere to go, thumbnail photos were scattered everywhere, and it was extremely text, or should I say link, heavy.

So what I got from critiquing some of the largest news sources out there was this...they are trying to cram as much information as they possibly can on their home page so you can choose what you want to read at it and go directly there .I believe the term we learned for these sites in Web Communication was "non-linear structure." Basically, it's a free-for-all. Perhaps a little chaotic, but I don't really see a way to get away from that. However, what I was most surprised was the lack of the use of compelling photographs. Most were just thumbnail shots of recognizable faces.

Living in a Depressed America

Americans are depressed...

about their country.

An article in USA Today by Susan Page says that Americans are largely unhappy with the current state of affairs with their country. Now is not too much of a shock considering we are involved in a highly unpopular war and political parties seem to be more split than ever, but the numbers are quite staggering.

According to a USA Today/Gallup Poll taken October 12-14, 72% of those polled are dissatisfied with how things are going in the USA. The article states that, "Not since April have even one-third of Americans been happy with the country's course, the longest national funk in 15 years."

It goes on to say that "The war in Iraq is a major drag...," and even though the economy is doing quite well, "the sense of insecurity, the sense of anxiety of what the future might hold that's having a downward effect."

So what I've been thinking is this...we have almost a year to the day until the 2008 presidential elections. Can Bush do much in that time to boost his approval ratings and instill confidence pertaining to the direction our country is going back into the American people? Should he even bother to try? In my opinion, probably not.

So who can help? The media. And what can be done? The media can point out what is going right in Iraq. It can balance air time between photos and videos of the accomplishments made by our thousands of troops with the aftermath of suicide bombs. I'm not saying the media should ignore the horrible reality that is war, but let's see both sides, for the sake of our country and for the sake of those who have loved ones there. I see no disadvantage whatsoever in doing so. Those who are against the war are still going to be against it, and those who support the war are still going to support it.

A year before voting, a nation of discontent

Democratic Debate

I found an interesting feature on The New York Times web site today. On the home page, there was a link for Live-Blogging the Democratic Debate. I did not watch the debates and planned on watching the post-game wrap up of sorts cable news usually puts together, but the blog on the Times web site broke down the debate throughout the two hours.

Obama has been coming out of late exerting that now that he has established his biography, he is ready to show why he is a better candidate than the other Democrats running for president, presumably front-runner Hillary Clinton.

The blogger, Katherine Q. Seelye did an outstanding job, in my opinion, of highlighting the most exciting parts of the debate which honestly enough, center around who is attacking who.

A post at 9:02pm reads

Barack Obama is given his chance off the bat to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton.
(And to make the first “Rocky” reference.) After a long wind-up, he says Mrs. Clinton has
been on both sides of Nafta, torture and Iraq and says, “I think what we need right now is
honesty with the American people about where we would take the country. That’s how I’m
trying to run my campaign.”

But wow, if that was his opening shot, it was pretty soft. Mrs. Clinton got the signal and goes
after the Republicans, not Mr. Obama. But John Edwards picked up the baton from Mr.
Obama and also starts in on Mrs. Clinton and says, “I think it is crucial for Democratic
voters and caucus-goers to determine who they can trust, who’s honest, who is sincere, who
has integrity.”

I especially liked the comment feature. Every time I refreshed the page, more comments were added. Some of them were quite witty and controversial. For example, Mike said at 9:34 pm, "God help us if one of these Socialists take the office." Javier, from Chile, said at 9:43 pm, "I, personally, am not against Hillary nor in favor of Obama, but I think the american people, and the world, is not prepared for a woman. I’m from Chile, and I know that women as presidents are a mess in the kind of world we’ve got nowadays."

 Do You Think Interactive Blogs Are a Useful Media Tool?

• 
  
  Yes


• 
  
  No


• 
  
  I Don't Know, I've Never Read One.

view results
Free vote poll

I just wanted to post this link to a feature The New York Times has on its web site, "Pictures of the Day." Some of the photos were really moving. I was never very interested in photography, but as the SMAD program at JMU continues to change and I am exposed to the integration of media which is and undoubtedly will continue to take place in journalism, my curiousity is growing.

The New York Times - Pictures of the Day

Rep. Pete Stark

Last week, Representative Pete Stark (D) of California suggested that "President Bush was sending troops to Iraq to get their "heads blown off for his amusement.'"

Pretty shocking statement that obviously ruffled a lot of feathers, isn't it? The "original comments came before a failed override vote on the president's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program." However, they also unfortunately reflected the sentiment of many far left anti-war activists who hate President Bush.


So, what's different about Stark's comment? He apologized today. The apology came after a motion was voted on to table a resolution to censor Stark. The motion failed.

"I want to apologize first of all to my colleagues, many of whom I have offended, to the president. his family, to the troops that may have found (offense) in my remarks as were suggested in the motion that we just voted on, and I do apologize. ... With this apology I will become as insignificant as I should be and we can return to the issues that do divide us but that we can resolve," Stark said to applause.


After his apology, he walked off the floor to the Democratic side of the chamber were he stood sobbing for at least five minutes while fellow Democrats gathered around him.

So why the emotional outbursts of hatred and then sorrow?


Ohio Demoratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur told FOX News that the war "takes a great toll on members ... within that context their measure is tested, but there's not that much in the cup because it's so painful to face this and detest what's going on."


I thought that Kaptur's take on the reason for Stark's outburst was interesting and legitimate. I feel passionately about a number of subjects, including the war in Iraq, and if I was thrust into a position where hundreds of other people, most of who which do not share my viewpoint, and was forced to work alongside them to reach reasonable compromises each and every day, I am sure that an outburst would be inevitable.

However, I do not feel that stress or passion excuses Stark's behavior. When I watch the news, I like to hear that the Congress accomplished something of some significance that day in Washington, not that a member accused the President rejecting a bill on health insurance so he could watch them grow old enough to go to Iraq and have their heads blown off.

Now that is a childish comment.

I was reading the talking points online today for the O'Reilly Factor (the opening segment of the show that introduces the main focus of that night's program) and they were dedicated to recognizing Lt. Michael Murphy, a Navy Seal who sacrificed his life in Afghanistan to help his unit. Lieutenant Murphy's family received the Medal of Honor in a White House ceremony today.

According to the talking points, "the story received minimal attention from the liberal press. It ran in the 'Metro' section of The New York Times, for example."

I didn't really find this information too shocking. To be honest, when I read the New York Times, I do not look for nor expect to see stories of this nature. I do not think that this classifies this publication poor or something we should turn our noses down on, but I do think it is a good example to support an assertion made by O'Reilly in his talking points.

He categorized FOX News not as conservative, but prone to adopting a "pro-USA viewpoint." He defines this as giving "our country the benefit of the doubt." Other publications typically categorized as liberal do not take this stance.

Now which one is correct? Will the shift change when our involvement changes in the war against terrorism?

I can't help but think that FOX News will shift toward the more critical viewpoint exercised by such publications as The New York Times. However, I think that in the times that we live in, a FOX News is extremely important.

According to The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly's ratings outnumbered those of MSNBC and CNN in that time slot with over a million to spare. That sheer volume of numbers must tell us that Americans are looking for something in their news, whether it be a pro-American stance or not, and FOX News is providing it.

Blog Candidates, Blog!

Why are Americans so apathetic when it comes to voting? What factors in their lives, backgrounds, ethnicity, etc. contribute to this apathy? What can be done to change it?

These are only a few questions that we covered in my Political Parties and Election class last year at JMU. It was by far one of the most interesting classes, and one of the most important classes, that I have ever taken. We addressed issues related to why almost half of this country is apathetic when it comes to politics and voting. We studied statistics related to those who actually do vote including their race, age, socioeconomic background, gender, etc. We also followed voting trends and tried to determine why certain people vote the way they do.

I learned so much pertaining to the history of political parties and elections, but when it came to what can be done about the lack of voting in this country, I got a pretty hopeless feeling. It has never, in the history of our country, been easier to vote. All it takes is a few minutes online or an extra form to fill out at the DMV when you're sitting there waiting all those hours, yet people still do not do it, or they do, their political voice stops there.

Why? Because we're too busy, registration is too complicated, many of us have to vote absentee, candidates do not address areas of interest, political bickering is a turn off, political campaigns are negative, election day is not a holiday, or unfortunately enough, you don't get free stuff.

So pushing aside for now our laziness in registering to vote, how can we get closer to our candidates? Well, perhaps our candidates can become more personal, more on our level, show us that they partake in some of the same activities that we do...like blogging!

Then I realized...most of the candidates web sites already have a tab for their blogs. Would they be impersonal and scripted like most of their interviews? I wanted to find out.

So what did I find when I clicked on the tab for blogHillary? She doesn't write her own blog. Instead, spokespersons for different organizations that support Hillary do.

Well, what about Rudy Giuliani? Nope. Granted, his is a little more personal and engaging, but his Deputy Communications Director, Maria Cornello seems to be one of the most frequent contributors. He also includes various video clips featuring him in interviews and other political figures voicing their support.

And Obama? His blog is more like a page of every day run-of-the-mill "joe schmoe" supporters and why they think Obama should be the next president.

So why are the candidate's blogs more like...group blogs? Wouldn't it be interesting if each week a candidate could sit down and spill their guts a little? They could give us a deep down honest assessment of the weeks events. They could tell us how their campaign is going. They could introduce us to some new thoughts that they might have had that week which they think might help establish their campaign or set them apart from their competitors.

Of course, they would have to have their "people" oversee what they have written and edit it for content, but hey, at least it's a little personal. I, for one, would be more than willing to check out the blogs of the future leaders of the free world every once in awhile, and I'm pretty sure a good portion of America would too.


I can't think of a better way to reach out to the "young adult" category of America which traditionally has the lowest percentage of voters. We're technology savvy and we're on the internet for hours each day. Hey, they could even include an RSS feed and we could stick it on our iGoogle portal.

Just an idea, candidates!

Rudy's "Blog"
Hillary's "Blog"
Obama's "Blog"

A small update on a past topic I blogged about: The Collegian and it's controversial statement on the house editorial page. The editor-in-chief of Colorado State University's paper, David McSwane, will keep his job after the controversial column. (I have provided the link a few posts below). Jim Landers, who spoke for the board that oversees student media, said "We see the editorial as an opinion which is protected by the first amendment."

According to CNN.com, "McSwane's column resulted in lost revenue for the self-funded newspaper, including 18 advertisers and up to $50,000, director of student media Jeff Browne said at the public meeting on September 26."

Now, student Republicans are beginning production of their own newspaper.

So, due to the editorial, the student paper lost thousands of dollars in funding and the college media is now extremely politcally divided...but McSwane's 1st amendment rights sure were exercised to their fullest extent.

Was it really worth it?

CNN article

Ann Coulter's New Book

Last week, I bought Ann Coulter's new book, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans. It was definitely an impulse buy, but I like Ann Coulter's biting commentary and shocking opinions on current events because I think that a lot of times she says what other Republicans are afraid to say. A good portion of her book includes comments and jokes she has made in scattered interviews and lectures. I just wanted to post a few of the ones that caught my attention, made me laugh, or I thought went a little too far. However, as Coulter would say, "liberals prefer denouncing people with idioms - over the top, gone too far, crossed the line, beyond the pale..."

Q: Entre nous, what's the new book about? When will it be finished and available?
A: I was going to tell you, but then you started with that entre nous business. You know how I hate anything French.

-Interview, NewsMax 9-28-05 (Coulter 79)

Q: What do you enjoy most about your life as a bestselling author and columnist?...
A: Enjoy most: the prospect of having an impact on the public debate. Irritating liberals is a close second.

-Interview, Human Events, 6-6-06 (Coulter 81)

Q: Who will win the elections in 2004?
A: That's for the Supreme Court to figure out, you ignorant foreigner.

-Interview, II Foglio (Italy), 10-04 (Coulter 98)

My pick [for president] so far is this guy in Philly who put up the "this is America - please order in English" sign in his sandwich shop. Hey, at least the guy has a coherent immigration policy.

-Interview, Baltimore Sun, 7-30-06 (Coulter 99)

Legitimate Dissent or Anti-American?

I was watching the O'Reilly Factor last night and I thought Bill brought up an interesting point. He was discussing the difference between expressing legitimate dissent against a country or government and spouting anti (in this case American) comments or accusations.


He showed clips of musician Bruce Springsteen performing a concert on the Today show. Before he performed, he said


"This is a song called 'Livin' In the Future.' But it's really about what's happening now. Right now. It's kind of about how the things we love about America, cheeseburgers, French fries, the Yankees battlin' Boston, the Bill of Rights, v-twin motorcycles, Tim Russert's haircut, trans-fats and the Jersey Shore... We love those things the way womenfolk love on Matt Lauer.

But over the past six years we've had to add to the American picture: rendition, illegal wiretapping, voter suppression, no habeus corpus, the neglect of that great city New Orleans and its people, an attack on the Constitution. And the loss of our best men and women in a tragic war.

This is a song about things that shouldn't happen here happening here. So right now we plan to do something about it, we plan to sing about it. I know it's early (in the morning), but it's late. So come and join us."

O'Reilly said that Springsteen's comments could be described as legitimate dissent as long as he could provide facts and examples to support such things as "no habeus corpus" and "an attack on the Constitution."

I think this makes sense. We have first amendments rights as citizens of this country, and if we want to express dissent, we should be able to do so.

O'Reilly also showed a clip of Sean Penn on the Late Show with David Letterman. A portion of their conversation reads

SEAN PENN: Well, I think if people have oil under their ground they're called wacky. I found him a very fascinating guy. Very, you know, he's done, for the moment, incredible things for the 80 percent of the people that are very poor there. But a fascinating character, somebody I'm writing about.

LETTERMAN: But isn't he talking about nationalizing the media? That always makes me a little concerned when somebody's talking about doing that.

PENN: He's, well, you know, one of the things that's been said about him is he's shut down a television station. What happened is that since 1998 they had been encouraging the assassination of Chavez every day on that channel -- something that they would have gone to prison for here. And so he just didn't re-up that license. But meanwhile, you know, the idea that, that there's no freedom of expression, I mean the loons on Fox News are broadcast there every day.

O'Reilly had a different take on Penn's comments. Penn was defending Hugo Chavez's choice to shut down a television station. However, the information he provided regarding why he shut it down was false. O'Reilly uncovered that the station he shut down was not the one that was encouraging his assassination, but a separate one entirely. Therefore he categorized his comments as anti-American.

The facts behind Penn's comments were untrue, and therefore, classified as anti-American by O'Reilly.

I found these classifications interesting because of the controversy over the house editorial in the Collegian and my studies in my law class of the 1st amendment. It seems like Hollywood sure knows how to exercise their right of freedom of speech.

Here are the links for articles related to the Hollywood comments:

Bruce Springsteen

Sean Penn

Is the Troop Surge Working?

Since the surge of 30,000 more troops into Iraq on June 15th, it has been difficult for the average American to evaluate whether the effort has been successful or unsuccessful in curbing Al Qaeda and the amount of American troops and Iraqi civilians killed. I decided to examine two different articles about military casualties in the month of September. One is from foxnews.com and the other from abcnews.com. Both provide that the number of U.S. Military casualties is the lowest it has been since July 2006.

The first, from foxnews.com, was very specific in providing statistics of the decline in casualties of each group affected by the war. It also provided the number of Al Qaeda members killed and other terrorists thought to be involved with Al Qaeda. It provides a good quote from the spokesman for General David Petraeus attributing the decline in casualties of troops and citizens to the surge and its allowance for "American forces to step up operations against Al Qaeda in Iraq."

I think one of the most important facets of the foxnews.com article was its introduction of a Senate resolution adopted last week which "proposed reshaping Iraq according to three sectarian or ethnic territories." The article also provided the negative reactions from the U.S. Embassy and representatives of Iraq's major political parties.

In review of the article, from abcnews.com, it too provided helpful statistics to grasping the effect of the surge. However, it took a broader look at the troop surge, including its downfalls in its early months of implementation. It also reveals lesser known facts of military procedure, such as how they rate the level of security in each of Baghdad's 474 neighborhoods.

I found it interesting that the article pointed out possible flaws in the data and statistics represented due to a report issued last week from the Government Accountability Office. "...the Pentagon data may not capture violence produced by militia attacks on each other. It recommends the Pentagon produce more frequent and detailed reports."

After reading both articles, I felt like I had almost read two different accounts on the progress. The foxnews.com article was hopeful and encouraging providing specific, detailed, and colorful accounts pertaining to how certain Al Qeada members had been captured and killed. The abcnews.com article, however, cast a shadow of doubt over how accurate the numbers released pertaining to casualties of US troops and Iraqi civilians were. I felt, as always, that it was most beneficial for me to read both stories to get the WHOLE story.

From the foxnews.com article, I learned about a proposed resolution in the Senate to end the war and allow for the formation of three ethnic or sectarian territories. From the abcnews.com article, I learned that the statistics may be flawed, and we may not be performing as well in Iraq as we think we are.

Getting news from multiple sources seems necessary in learning the most amount of facts, and perhaps, the whole story.

U.S. Military Casualties in Iraq Fall to Lowest Since July, '06; Iraqi Civilian Deaths Drop By More Than 50 Percent (foxnews.com)

Troop Deaths in Iraq Drop in September (abcnews.com)

Iraqi Bloggers

I ran across an article in BBC News entitled "Iraqi bloggers at home and abroad." I just wanted to quickly post this link. It includes excerpts from the blogs of Iraqi bloggers who remain in Iraq or who have left the war torn country.

Iraqi Bloggers

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, is to arrive in New York tomorrow, Sunday, September 23. He also will be speaking at Columbia University the following day. The invitation from the university has been widely criticized, but the president of the university, Lee Bollinger has said he will "introduce the talk himself with a series of tough questions on topics including Ahmadinejad's views on the Holocaust, his call for the destruction of the state of Israel and his government's alleged support of terrorism" (nytimes.com).

An article in the New York Times called "Extremist Speakers a Dilemma at Colleges" discusses whether college campuses are appropriate places for all views to be aired. It seems reasonable enough. Students attend universities to learn and gain insight beyond their own. What I find questionable about allowing Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia is whether or not he will bring valuable insight to those in attendance.

The article explains that with past controversial guest speakers, more anger has been provoked than thought. Some of these speakers include Ward Churchill who was initially invited to Hamilton College but then later canceled as a speaker, and Ann Coulter who was hit with a pie during a University of Arizona appearance in 2004.

I think that we hear enough of what these political and controversial figures have to say by way of mainstream media, and I do not anticipate the sentiment toward them will change if you simply move their comments to a university setting. In fact, their comments will probably be on the mild side, especially in the case of Ahmadinejad, and we will be exposed to a unrealistic view of the man. Where is the opportunity of gaining knowledge in that?

One part of the article that struck me as being a little ridiculous was a comment by Harvey Silverglate, a civil rights attorney who has criticized higher education for failing to support free speech on campus. He said, "...one of the things we really lacked in this country was sufficient contact with Nazis to realize what they are up to...that you're going to take really awful people and not listen to them is really suicidal for any society." I'm not quite sure what engaging in a debate with a "really awful" person will do to broaden the views of not "really awful" people, but I bet that Ahmadinejad would agree with that comment.

Click here to read the rest of "Extremist Speakers a Dilemma at Colleges"

Click here to watch Ann Coulter's "pie incident"

1st Amendment Rights

I was preparing to blog today about the now infamous event that occurred last week at the University of Florida. 21-year-old Andrew Meyer was Tasered during a forum featuring Senator John Kerry when he went over the established questioning time limit and then resisted police attempts to escort him from discussion. However, that story has in a way unraveled because the continued coverage has revealed the student as a prankster who asked several fellow students to tape him as he approached the microphone. I'm not saying that this excuses the force the officers used against him. However, the debate is no longer about his 1st amendment right possibly being compromised, which is what interested me in the first place.
I'm currently taking a media law class required for all School of Media Arts and Design undergraduates. In our first few weeks of study we have discussed the history of the 1st amendment as a defense in US court cases. It's amazing how many controversies still exist related to the 1st amendment, and browsing through the headlines this morning, I found an extremely disturbing one.
Colorado State University's student newspaper, The Rocky Mountain Collegian, published an editorial on September 21 reading "Taser this...(expletive) BUSH."

click here to read the editorial (contains offensive language)

I'm assuming the editorial is a twisted play on words reflecting Meyer's heated exclamation, "Don't Taser me bro!" However, if the point of the editorial was to bring more attention to the Meyer controversy, it failed miserably. The Collegian posted a letter from the editor, David McSwane, online that expressed it's intention in publishing the editorial:

The First Amendment is at the very core of what we do as a newspaper. We as journalists wish to celebrate it, utilize it and, sometimes, defend it. The Collegian editorial board, a group of seven student editors charged with determining a staff editorial for each issue, voted to run the editorial statement. This vote was a split vote, but the board as a whole as agreed to stand behind this decision and to continue the Collegian tradition. (www.collegian.com)

Okay. Firstly, I'm not exactly sure how printing this editorial "celebrates" the first amendment, but in undoubtedly "unitlizes" it. Secondly, I think that most people would agree that the role of a newspaper is to bring together a community and provide all with an equal opportunity to be informed. I think this is especially true in the case of a student newspaper. Now I realize that this was the editorial page that the staff was in charge of, but that does not mean that their responsibility as journalists disappears. Where is the educational value in such a statement? How does it benefit the community? According to the letter from the editor, it has instead divided the community and sparked outrage. Thirdly, I think the editorial is unoriginal and cliche. In these troubling times, you hear vulgar sentiments toward Bush on a daily basis. I believe the one reason this one is gathering national attention is because it's from a student newspaper. Instead of publishing something that is worth reading and possibly challenges current ways of thought, they published something vulgar and irresponsible. It makes the university look childish, and their excuse that they were merely exercising their 1st amendment rights is a simple crutch and immature excuse for thoughtless behavior.

Click here to read the entire letter from the editor

Click here to read further coverage from Fox News Online about the CSU controversy

 Do you think that the Collegian's editorial statement was an appropriate exercise of the 1st Amendment?

• 
  
  Yes


• 
  
  No

view results
Free vote poll