I just watched the 11:00 news on News Channel 12, New Jersey. First and foremost I must say that it was extremely frustrating to watch. With weather every ten minutes and commercials at about the same rate, actual news air time within the hour was severely limited. Of the remaining news time, a good chunk of it was spent on sports segments. In fact, the same sports report ran twice within the hour, and both times it took up a whole period of time from one commercial break to another. I would say that of the hour I watched News 12 New Jersey, there was about 30 minutes of actual "news".
During this time, News 12 covered 27 other stories. Some of them included: a local woman giving away prom dresses to girls who cannot afford them, a dog getting rescued from a well it fell down, a brush fire in North Bergen, children in the Head Start program planting a garden, a string of robberies at local Dunkin' Donuts chains, kittens left in a hot car in Newark which were then taken away by the Humane Society, along with many other fairly inconsequential stories. This would not have bothered me so much if it were not for the way in which they covered the few stories of consequence that they aired.
Of all the stories in the hour, I would classify only eight of them as being at least somewhat political in nature. Of those, one was a blatant photo-op for Governor Corzine, in which he read a Dr. Seuss book to children at Parkway Elementary School for Read Across America. The second was about the child welfare system in New Jersey, which in recent years has come under criticism for failing to adequately protect children. However, the story consisted of a brief mention by one anchor that a recent report says that the child welfare system in New Jersey is making progress. Another story had to address the swine flu, because what would a news segment be this week if it did not mention it? News 12 made sure to report that Governor Corzine says that we have plenty of medications stocked from the avian flu scare (which also turned out to be a lot of hype over nothing) and that New Jerseyians can rest assured that there is enough medication to go around. Here, they also reported that 60% of their viewers were concerned about the swine flu, while 40% thought the media was blowing it out of proportion. In another segment, they quickly addressed the Specter party switch. They also quickly noted that President Barack Obama chose a secretary of Health and Human Services. News 12 spent a little bit longer showing President Obama's apology for the low flying plane in Manhattan earlier this week, showing that both Governor Corzine and President Obama claim they were not informed about this photo-op. I would have linked to these stories as well, but none of them made the website as far as I can tell. News 12 reported that Governor Corzine and the Supreme Court of New Jersey were re-evaluating school funding in urban districts but did not explain what was happening at all. However, on the website, there is a link to a story which I assume explains what is happening. Unfortunately, the link does not work, so I may never know. The only politically oriented story they seemed to spend more than a minute on involved the school board elections in a "Kane In Your Corner" segment, which is a special feature of the show. The story on school board elections focused on the cost of these elections and how many citizens feel they are unnecessary and ineffective.
Overall, I did not feel any more informed after having watched the local news. I was frustrated by the lack of content, and frustrated even more by the way important stories were briefly mentioned and not explained. I was further disappointed by News 12 after viewing their website, but at this point I am not surprised. I think it is safe to say that if you want to hear about significant events and have them explained in at least some detail, you should avoid watching News 12.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Chevy Volt: Real Solution or Just Another Flashy Toy?
Yesterday, Environmental Capital, an environmental business blog by The Wall Street Journal featured "GM’s New Plan: Fewer Jobs, More Chevy Volt". The post describes GM's plan to cut down on expenses and to enhance the technology present in its new car model, the Chevrolet Volt. Advertised in the following video, the Volt seems very promising.
Unfortunately, seeming like an impressive new option and actually being that are two very different things. In the Wall Street Journal blog, Keith Johnson emphasizes the main criticism of GM's latest endeavor: it is more expensive than cars that use gasoline. While some might argue that there will be savings in the long run due to the money owners would save spending on gas, I have to disagree. Have you looked at your electricity bill lately? Owners will substantially reduce their gas bills, (especially if they travel less than 40 miles between charges) but electricity is not overwhelmingly less expensive.
I must admit that when I first heard about the Volt I was immediately intrigued. I thought it would be a great trade in when my lease is up on the Chevy Cobalt(ironically enough in 2010, the Volt's scheduled release year). When I got the Chevy Cobalt in 2006, the sticker price was about $15,000.00. According to Michael Graham Richard of Treehugger.com, the Chevy Volt will cost closer to $35,000.00. That price is clearly out of the range of most Americans, and during the economic crisis people are even less likely to be able to spend the extra money.
Bottom Line: GM will have to find a way to make the Volt less costly if they intend to see it succeed. There's really no need for the extra features prominently displayed in the above video. If GM eliminates some of the bells and whistles that in my opinion are unnecessary in a car intended for mass production and sale, they might actually have a shot at survival.
Unfortunately, seeming like an impressive new option and actually being that are two very different things. In the Wall Street Journal blog, Keith Johnson emphasizes the main criticism of GM's latest endeavor: it is more expensive than cars that use gasoline. While some might argue that there will be savings in the long run due to the money owners would save spending on gas, I have to disagree. Have you looked at your electricity bill lately? Owners will substantially reduce their gas bills, (especially if they travel less than 40 miles between charges) but electricity is not overwhelmingly less expensive.
I must admit that when I first heard about the Volt I was immediately intrigued. I thought it would be a great trade in when my lease is up on the Chevy Cobalt(ironically enough in 2010, the Volt's scheduled release year). When I got the Chevy Cobalt in 2006, the sticker price was about $15,000.00. According to Michael Graham Richard of Treehugger.com, the Chevy Volt will cost closer to $35,000.00. That price is clearly out of the range of most Americans, and during the economic crisis people are even less likely to be able to spend the extra money.
Bottom Line: GM will have to find a way to make the Volt less costly if they intend to see it succeed. There's really no need for the extra features prominently displayed in the above video. If GM eliminates some of the bells and whistles that in my opinion are unnecessary in a car intended for mass production and sale, they might actually have a shot at survival.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Taking Colbert Too Seriously?
Today, a post was made by Jason Linkins on the Huffington Post blog entitled "Colbert Study: Conservatives Don't Know He's Joking". This post talks about a study conducted by Heather L. LaMarre at Ohio State University that finds "that lots of conservatives seem to not understand the intrinsic, underlying joke of The Colbert Report". The study found that conservatives were more likely to think that Colbert genuinely means what he says, even though he says it in a joking manner. They were also more likely to think that Colbert dislikes liberalism. Since I have not seen much if any of the Colbert Report, I decided to look up a recent video clip to get a better idea about what the study is testing. The following video was posted on the Colbert Report website today:
After watching this clip I find it hard to believe that anyone does not realize Mr. Colbert is not being serious. The show is aired on a network called Comedy Central. It is obvious that Stephen Colbert is a comedian and that he does not sincerely believe everything that he is saying. With that being said, I can understand how people taking a survey who only watch the show could think that Stephen Colbert really is a conservative, just joking about his own ideology. However, Jason Linkins makes a great point in bringing up the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, during which Mr. Colbert made jokes criticizing President Bush and the main stream media. Since I really don't know anything about Mr. Colbert, I did a little research of my own and I found this article from the Washington Post which states that: "Colbert, whose office is adorned with a 1972 Richard Nixon campaign poster, admits to being a Democrat. But, he says, 'I'm not someone with a particular political ax to grind. I'm a comedian. I love hypocrisy.'"
It is somewhat frightening to think that anyone would believe that Mr. Colbert means the outlandish and extreme things he says. I do not think that the extreme point of view is ever a good one, and it often leads to people taking equally extreme actions. However, I hope that a Comedy Central does not have the power to greatly influence the beliefs and actions of masses of people. There will always be people who are extremists, whether it be liberal or conservative, and in my opinion they will be that way regardless of what shows they watch on television. Perhaps The Colbert Report should take more initiative to make it clear that Stephen Colbert is simply mocking the extreme point of view, not supporting it. Personally though, I believe that if someone is unsophisticated enough to believe that a show on Comedy Central is serious, they probably will not have any major impact on society.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Days of Swine and Doses | ||||
| ||||
After watching this clip I find it hard to believe that anyone does not realize Mr. Colbert is not being serious. The show is aired on a network called Comedy Central. It is obvious that Stephen Colbert is a comedian and that he does not sincerely believe everything that he is saying. With that being said, I can understand how people taking a survey who only watch the show could think that Stephen Colbert really is a conservative, just joking about his own ideology. However, Jason Linkins makes a great point in bringing up the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, during which Mr. Colbert made jokes criticizing President Bush and the main stream media. Since I really don't know anything about Mr. Colbert, I did a little research of my own and I found this article from the Washington Post which states that: "Colbert, whose office is adorned with a 1972 Richard Nixon campaign poster, admits to being a Democrat. But, he says, 'I'm not someone with a particular political ax to grind. I'm a comedian. I love hypocrisy.'"
It is somewhat frightening to think that anyone would believe that Mr. Colbert means the outlandish and extreme things he says. I do not think that the extreme point of view is ever a good one, and it often leads to people taking equally extreme actions. However, I hope that a Comedy Central does not have the power to greatly influence the beliefs and actions of masses of people. There will always be people who are extremists, whether it be liberal or conservative, and in my opinion they will be that way regardless of what shows they watch on television. Perhaps The Colbert Report should take more initiative to make it clear that Stephen Colbert is simply mocking the extreme point of view, not supporting it. Personally though, I believe that if someone is unsophisticated enough to believe that a show on Comedy Central is serious, they probably will not have any major impact on society.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Supreme Court Rules on Warantless Car Searches
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog posted an article today regarding the case of Arizona v. Gant which was decided yesterday by the Supreme Court. This case was about defining when the police are allowed to search someone's car. Mr. Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license and already sitting in the back of a police car when an officer searching his car found a gun and cocaine. Mr. Gant was sentenced to three years, but appealed his case to the Supreme Court of Arizona, where the conviction was thrown out. When the case made its way to the Supreme Court, they decided that the police did not have the right to search Mr. Gant's vehicle and to uphold the ruling of the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona. This case created unlikely alliances; the 5-4 decision had liberals and conservatives on both sides.
The New York Times article on this case states that this all started in 1981 with the decision of New York v. Belton. In this case, police officers were pretty much given the green light to search any car any person has been arrested in. However, the Justices in the majority of Arizona v. Gant, Justice John Stevens, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg all felt that the ruling in New York v. Belton had been too broadly applied and needed limiting. The standard set forth in the decision of Arizona v. Gant is stated in the New York Times article as follows:
As someone who has personally experienced multiple warantless searches by police officers, (Tip for readers: Do not ever drive a black Camaro through Garfield, New Jersey; You'll be sitting on the side of the road for forty-five minutes while they search your car for drugs) I can completely understand why the Court has finally decided to restrict the ability of police officers to search your car. In the instances I am talking about, no arrests were made, so maybe the rules are different. However, I do not see any reason to search the car of someone who is arrested for a traffic violation. So many weapons and drugs charges merely piggy-back some sort of traffic violation. Watch Cops sometime, you'll see what I'm talking about. While I do not support drug use or illegal possession of weapons, I do greatly value privacy. If the person is arrested for some unrelated traffic offense, what you would find when searching their car is irrelevant. I think that too often police officers are given too much leeway as far as violating individual rights is concerned. It will be interesting to see how the police handle adjusting to this limitation on their power.
I also have to note that I was very surprised to see the way the Court split on this issue. I was shocked That Justice Stevens, the most liberal member of the Court, and Justice Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the Court, wound up on the same side of a case that was split 5-4. This was especially meaningful given the widespread impact this decision will have on Police Departments around the country. There is one thing I have not been able to figure out yet about this case, and maybe someone else can help:
I know that police officers now cannot search the vehicle of an individual who has been arrested unless there may be evidence of the crime in the car or the individual being arrested is close enough to the car to reach into to it. What I am wondering is if this applies to traffic stops where no arrest is made. I would assume that it does, but you can never be too sure with the number of needless laws in this country. Can the police just pull you over for a traffic violation and still search your car when no arrest is made? I have tried to find the answer to this question, but I have not been able to. Any input?
The New York Times article on this case states that this all started in 1981 with the decision of New York v. Belton. In this case, police officers were pretty much given the green light to search any car any person has been arrested in. However, the Justices in the majority of Arizona v. Gant, Justice John Stevens, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg all felt that the ruling in New York v. Belton had been too broadly applied and needed limiting. The standard set forth in the decision of Arizona v. Gant is stated in the New York Times article as follows:
Vehicle searches should be allowed only in two situations, he wrote: when the person being arrested is close enough to the car to reach in, possibly to grab a weapon or tamper with evidence; or when the arresting officer reasonably believes that the car contains evidence pertinent to the very crime that prompted the arrest.
As someone who has personally experienced multiple warantless searches by police officers, (Tip for readers: Do not ever drive a black Camaro through Garfield, New Jersey; You'll be sitting on the side of the road for forty-five minutes while they search your car for drugs) I can completely understand why the Court has finally decided to restrict the ability of police officers to search your car. In the instances I am talking about, no arrests were made, so maybe the rules are different. However, I do not see any reason to search the car of someone who is arrested for a traffic violation. So many weapons and drugs charges merely piggy-back some sort of traffic violation. Watch Cops sometime, you'll see what I'm talking about. While I do not support drug use or illegal possession of weapons, I do greatly value privacy. If the person is arrested for some unrelated traffic offense, what you would find when searching their car is irrelevant. I think that too often police officers are given too much leeway as far as violating individual rights is concerned. It will be interesting to see how the police handle adjusting to this limitation on their power.
I also have to note that I was very surprised to see the way the Court split on this issue. I was shocked That Justice Stevens, the most liberal member of the Court, and Justice Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the Court, wound up on the same side of a case that was split 5-4. This was especially meaningful given the widespread impact this decision will have on Police Departments around the country. There is one thing I have not been able to figure out yet about this case, and maybe someone else can help:
I know that police officers now cannot search the vehicle of an individual who has been arrested unless there may be evidence of the crime in the car or the individual being arrested is close enough to the car to reach into to it. What I am wondering is if this applies to traffic stops where no arrest is made. I would assume that it does, but you can never be too sure with the number of needless laws in this country. Can the police just pull you over for a traffic violation and still search your car when no arrest is made? I have tried to find the answer to this question, but I have not been able to. Any input?
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Good Night, and Good Luck
The movie Good Night and Good Luck depicted the courageous efforts of Edward R. Murrow in ending the witch hunt for Communists in America which was led by Senator Joseph McCarthy. Edward R. Murrow was a well known television journalist, who risked his livelihood in order to expose Senator Joseph McCarthy for what he was doing in America. Senator McCarthy was going through the ranks of the United States government and finding Communist spies. However, it was quite evident that McCarthy was taking the situation too far, accusing people of being Communists through lies and assumptions. Luckily for all of us, Edward R. Murrow was not afraid to publicly assert that McCarthy was lying through a television program. The nation realized that they had been duped by McCarthy, and he quickly fell from his comfortable position of accuser. Hopefully in the future, we will never have another instance of McCarthyism on our hands (although it is likely we will).
There is another aspect to this film that I feel is even more applicable in today's society. The following video shows the speech that Edward Murrow gives at the end of the movie.
This speech shows Edward R. Murrow's deep commitment to truth and information in mainstream media. He suggests some educational programing be weaved into the seemingly endless stream of entertainment programming. He states that he feels people would not ignore this program, but embrace it and the country as a whole would benefit from it. If he had lived to see what media has become today, I think Mr. Murrow would be appalled. With constant access to information on the internet, people merely look up what they need, when they need it and then forget about it. Otherwise, in my experience, most people do not care about truly deepening their understanding of major issues in society. Even if Mr. Murrow's idea was implemented today, I doubt it would reach very many people. People have hundreds of television stations with digital cable, satellite television and other common services, those who had no desire to listen could just change the channel or head over to their computer to obtain some meaningless entertainment. In my opinion, those who are interested enough to continue watching are the kind of people who would have researched information on their own, and while they will appreciate the program, they are not the ones who need to be watching it. I like his idea, I just worry that Americans have become too complacent. They do not want to hear about the fundamental issues that are effecting society, and I do not think that even Mr. Murrow's plan will force people to care.
There is another aspect to this film that I feel is even more applicable in today's society. The following video shows the speech that Edward Murrow gives at the end of the movie.
This speech shows Edward R. Murrow's deep commitment to truth and information in mainstream media. He suggests some educational programing be weaved into the seemingly endless stream of entertainment programming. He states that he feels people would not ignore this program, but embrace it and the country as a whole would benefit from it. If he had lived to see what media has become today, I think Mr. Murrow would be appalled. With constant access to information on the internet, people merely look up what they need, when they need it and then forget about it. Otherwise, in my experience, most people do not care about truly deepening their understanding of major issues in society. Even if Mr. Murrow's idea was implemented today, I doubt it would reach very many people. People have hundreds of television stations with digital cable, satellite television and other common services, those who had no desire to listen could just change the channel or head over to their computer to obtain some meaningless entertainment. In my opinion, those who are interested enough to continue watching are the kind of people who would have researched information on their own, and while they will appreciate the program, they are not the ones who need to be watching it. I like his idea, I just worry that Americans have become too complacent. They do not want to hear about the fundamental issues that are effecting society, and I do not think that even Mr. Murrow's plan will force people to care.
Monday, April 20, 2009
NPR: Debate Over the 2010 Census
Yesterday, I listened to NPR's All Things Considered broadcast on the 2010 Census debate, which can be found here. Having briefly considered working part-time for the Census after receiving an e-mail from my college saying they were hiring, this particular topic peaked my interest. I never realized how much debate there is over the census, but now that I think about it, I can see why.
Jacki Lyden,the host, states that more than 100,000 people started working for the Census Bureau this week. There will be 1.4 million temporary jobs with the Census Bureau over the course of conducting the 2010 census. However, there is still widespread debate over the best methods to use in collecting the census data. The 1990 Census missed so many people that the Clinton Administration tried to implement the use of statistical sampling in the 2000 census. This sparked tremendous political debate between Democrats and Repulicans. Democrats want to employ a method of statistical sampling in which a model could be used to account for the people who are missing from the actual raw data. Republicans disagree with this practice and believe that physically counting each citizen is the only way to conduct the census and that no adjustments should take place after that. The battle wound up in the Supreme Court and eventually President George W. Bush precluded statistical sampling as an option.
The stakes are high in this particular debate. Census data is not just there to provide something for all of us political science majors to use in our reports, it has actual consequences in the political realm! How much federal money goes to your state, the number of representatives your state gets in the House of Representatives, and how many people vote on your state's behalf in the electoral college all depend on the census data.
Representing the Republican point of view, Newt Gingrich spoke on the show. Mr. Gingrich states that all Republicans want is for every American to be counted, the way the Constitution intended. Their concerns with statistical sampling are that it will not accurately represent the population and that it will distort the figures. His solution is an outsourcing of the census to private companies to avoid workers who have an agenda and to enhance accuracy. When asked if he thought President Obama would try to reverse the restriction President Bush made against statistical sampling he said that he thinks President Obama will try to change the rules and adjust the count after it is taken.
Representing the Democratic point of view was Robert Shapiro, Supervisor of the 2000 Census. Mr. Shapiro stated that the census is the largest nonmilitary operation the Federal government carries out. He explained that statistical sampling happens after all of the census data is collected. Then 1,000,000 homes are selected at random. The occupants are re-interviewed and the data from all one million homes is used as a sample. The sample is checked against the entire population to see if the population is adequately represented. If it is not, then based on a statistical model, they make adjustments. He emphasizes that statistical sampling is not in place of an enumeration, it is in addition to it, and actually makes the census data more reliable. Mr. Shapiro also states that the Census data does not have the kind of impact on Congressional results that the Republicans think there is.
After listening to an argument from both sides, I have to agree with the Republicans on this one. Though I have used statistical sampling and relied on it in many of my classes, I do not think that I would chance the amount of federal aid, how many representatives we have and how many electoral votes we have on a statistical model that could always be flawed. I do not see why we cannot just have a good, old-fashioned head count. I realize that some people avoid participating in the census out of fear or just apathy and that this is why so many people go unaccounted for. Perhaps then, we can determine some kind of incentive to motivate people to participate in the census and to provide accurate information. If we can convince people that the census is a good thing and that no one is going to get in trouble because of it, then we would not have the need for statistical sampling. Maybe we should be focusing our efforts there.
Jacki Lyden,the host, states that more than 100,000 people started working for the Census Bureau this week. There will be 1.4 million temporary jobs with the Census Bureau over the course of conducting the 2010 census. However, there is still widespread debate over the best methods to use in collecting the census data. The 1990 Census missed so many people that the Clinton Administration tried to implement the use of statistical sampling in the 2000 census. This sparked tremendous political debate between Democrats and Repulicans. Democrats want to employ a method of statistical sampling in which a model could be used to account for the people who are missing from the actual raw data. Republicans disagree with this practice and believe that physically counting each citizen is the only way to conduct the census and that no adjustments should take place after that. The battle wound up in the Supreme Court and eventually President George W. Bush precluded statistical sampling as an option.
The stakes are high in this particular debate. Census data is not just there to provide something for all of us political science majors to use in our reports, it has actual consequences in the political realm! How much federal money goes to your state, the number of representatives your state gets in the House of Representatives, and how many people vote on your state's behalf in the electoral college all depend on the census data.
Representing the Republican point of view, Newt Gingrich spoke on the show. Mr. Gingrich states that all Republicans want is for every American to be counted, the way the Constitution intended. Their concerns with statistical sampling are that it will not accurately represent the population and that it will distort the figures. His solution is an outsourcing of the census to private companies to avoid workers who have an agenda and to enhance accuracy. When asked if he thought President Obama would try to reverse the restriction President Bush made against statistical sampling he said that he thinks President Obama will try to change the rules and adjust the count after it is taken.
Representing the Democratic point of view was Robert Shapiro, Supervisor of the 2000 Census. Mr. Shapiro stated that the census is the largest nonmilitary operation the Federal government carries out. He explained that statistical sampling happens after all of the census data is collected. Then 1,000,000 homes are selected at random. The occupants are re-interviewed and the data from all one million homes is used as a sample. The sample is checked against the entire population to see if the population is adequately represented. If it is not, then based on a statistical model, they make adjustments. He emphasizes that statistical sampling is not in place of an enumeration, it is in addition to it, and actually makes the census data more reliable. Mr. Shapiro also states that the Census data does not have the kind of impact on Congressional results that the Republicans think there is.
After listening to an argument from both sides, I have to agree with the Republicans on this one. Though I have used statistical sampling and relied on it in many of my classes, I do not think that I would chance the amount of federal aid, how many representatives we have and how many electoral votes we have on a statistical model that could always be flawed. I do not see why we cannot just have a good, old-fashioned head count. I realize that some people avoid participating in the census out of fear or just apathy and that this is why so many people go unaccounted for. Perhaps then, we can determine some kind of incentive to motivate people to participate in the census and to provide accurate information. If we can convince people that the census is a good thing and that no one is going to get in trouble because of it, then we would not have the need for statistical sampling. Maybe we should be focusing our efforts there.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Hannity: 6 Ideas to Save America?
On April 9, 2009, the following segment aired on Hannity on the Fox news channel:
While the transcript can be accessed on the Hannity website, I am going to briefly discuss the piece. Mr. Hannity is talking to Representative Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, about the economy and potential solutions. This segment comes as a portion of a larger feature on the show: "6 Ideas to Save America". Representative Ryan speaks about lowering corporate taxes to keep jobs in America, making tax returns less complicated and suspending the capital gains tax through the year 2010. All of these things sound great to anyone; no one likes to pay taxes! Representative Ryan goes on to state that President Obama intends to raise every one of these taxes. Mr. Hannity asks Rep. Ryan if Republicans in Congress can garner any support from the Democrats (who have the majority in Congress) in order to support what the Rep. Ryan is proposing. Rep. Ryan does not seem to think so, even in the wake of the "$4 trillion in debt on top of a stimulus on top of a TARP on top of an omnibus on top of earmarks" mentioned by Hannity. (Just a side note here: I think it is funny that the way Mr. Hannity brings this up, to the uninformed citizen it would seem as if President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are responsible for the $4 trillion debt that America is in. I could have sworn some of that money was spent before President Obama's administration! My thought: Maybe Obama would not have to raise any of these taxes if it were not for the massive debt and mess of an economy he was left with.)
Mr. Hannity and Rep. Ryan then go on to discuss the tax system, and Mr. Hannity states that the bottom fifty percent of wage earners pay less than three percent of the federal tax bill. They also state that the top ten percent of wage earners pay seventy percent of the federal tax bill. That sounds awfully unfair at first glance, but if you think about it: who are the top ten percent of wage earners in America? I do not have statistical evidence to back my assumption here, but with all the celebrities, corporate business owners, CEOs (until recently of course) and other ridiculously high paying positions in America, I would think that a good portion, if not all of the top ten percent of tax payers are millionaires (if not billionaires). I would also assume that the bottom fifty percent consists mostly of people working minimum wage, working 40 hour weeks only to show about $15,000.00 for it at the end of the year. I cannot agree with Mr. Hannity and Rep. Ryan here: the wealth IS NOT already redistributed. We as a country just are not going to tax people who can barely survive (if they even can) on what they earn as much as we tax people who can live lavishly and still have tons of money to spare. This does not constitute a redistribution of wealth, it is merely a refusal to put a burden on people who cannot handle it as opposed to people who can.
Mr. Hannity and Representative Ryan basically conclude that nothing can be accomplished until elected Democrats are replaced with elected Republicans, and essentially put this plan on hold until 2010. What I do not understand is why. In my opinion, this type of show only encourages partisanship divisiveness. If these people really wanted to find a practical and feasible solution to the country's problems, they would attempt to work together with their colleagues, regardless of political affiliation, and collaborate to find the best solution. I do not disagree with all of the points that were made by Mr. Hannity and Representative Ryan, but the us versus them mentality is why nothing ever gets done in this country. I think that despite all the criticizing they do of President Obama, this time they should take his lead in fostering a connection between Democratic and Republican elected officials. It is time we put politics aside and truly save America, before it is too late.
While the transcript can be accessed on the Hannity website, I am going to briefly discuss the piece. Mr. Hannity is talking to Representative Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, about the economy and potential solutions. This segment comes as a portion of a larger feature on the show: "6 Ideas to Save America". Representative Ryan speaks about lowering corporate taxes to keep jobs in America, making tax returns less complicated and suspending the capital gains tax through the year 2010. All of these things sound great to anyone; no one likes to pay taxes! Representative Ryan goes on to state that President Obama intends to raise every one of these taxes. Mr. Hannity asks Rep. Ryan if Republicans in Congress can garner any support from the Democrats (who have the majority in Congress) in order to support what the Rep. Ryan is proposing. Rep. Ryan does not seem to think so, even in the wake of the "$4 trillion in debt on top of a stimulus on top of a TARP on top of an omnibus on top of earmarks" mentioned by Hannity. (Just a side note here: I think it is funny that the way Mr. Hannity brings this up, to the uninformed citizen it would seem as if President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are responsible for the $4 trillion debt that America is in. I could have sworn some of that money was spent before President Obama's administration! My thought: Maybe Obama would not have to raise any of these taxes if it were not for the massive debt and mess of an economy he was left with.)
Mr. Hannity and Rep. Ryan then go on to discuss the tax system, and Mr. Hannity states that the bottom fifty percent of wage earners pay less than three percent of the federal tax bill. They also state that the top ten percent of wage earners pay seventy percent of the federal tax bill. That sounds awfully unfair at first glance, but if you think about it: who are the top ten percent of wage earners in America? I do not have statistical evidence to back my assumption here, but with all the celebrities, corporate business owners, CEOs (until recently of course) and other ridiculously high paying positions in America, I would think that a good portion, if not all of the top ten percent of tax payers are millionaires (if not billionaires). I would also assume that the bottom fifty percent consists mostly of people working minimum wage, working 40 hour weeks only to show about $15,000.00 for it at the end of the year. I cannot agree with Mr. Hannity and Rep. Ryan here: the wealth IS NOT already redistributed. We as a country just are not going to tax people who can barely survive (if they even can) on what they earn as much as we tax people who can live lavishly and still have tons of money to spare. This does not constitute a redistribution of wealth, it is merely a refusal to put a burden on people who cannot handle it as opposed to people who can.
Mr. Hannity and Representative Ryan basically conclude that nothing can be accomplished until elected Democrats are replaced with elected Republicans, and essentially put this plan on hold until 2010. What I do not understand is why. In my opinion, this type of show only encourages partisanship divisiveness. If these people really wanted to find a practical and feasible solution to the country's problems, they would attempt to work together with their colleagues, regardless of political affiliation, and collaborate to find the best solution. I do not disagree with all of the points that were made by Mr. Hannity and Representative Ryan, but the us versus them mentality is why nothing ever gets done in this country. I think that despite all the criticizing they do of President Obama, this time they should take his lead in fostering a connection between Democratic and Republican elected officials. It is time we put politics aside and truly save America, before it is too late.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Mr. America
In two Op-Eds Larger Than Life in London and Liberty, Equality, Envy from today's New York Times, A.A. Gill and Amélie Nothomb remarked on President Obama's visit to London. I found these articles particularly intriguing, as they presented the views of citizens in other countries toward our new President, Barack Obama.
The view of A.A. Gill, of London, is clearly expressed in the title of his article where he describes the President as "Larger Than Life". He seems to take President Obama and First Lady Michele Obama as a breath of fresh air among stale and disconnected world leaders. After reading this article, one would envision the Obamas as vibrant, young, and most importantly extremely humble and gracious people. He focuses on the character of President and First Lady Obama as the most important factor in their future success. However, he also notes something that I think is extremely important, people around the entire world love the Obamas. He describes President Obama as the "only popular politician left in the world." This has immeasurable importance now that every issue has become globalized. In contrast to the isolationist personality of President Bush, President Obama has gone around the world impressing both world leaders and world citizens. The fact that world leaders want to be associated with him will prove very useful foreign relations in the future. It is also quite comforting to know that our President is held in such high regard globally.
Amélie Nothomb, of France, wrote a similarly praising article. Her position is that not only do people around the world love our President, but that they are jealous of us for having such an amazing leader. She also states that the leaders are even more envious, "wondering why they are not loved as well as Barack Obama is loved." The general tone of Ms. Nothomb's article is that people worldwide worship President Obama, she even states that "Mr. Obama's anger is portrayed here as something holy." While I wonder if that statement takes things a bit far, the important fact is people everywhere appear to be very supportive of our new President.
With such high expectations globally, I sincerely hope that President Obama will be able to live up to all of them. I agree with both columnists in the respect that I am proud to have Barack Obama as the President of the United States. However, we do still have to wait and see how he handles the many national and international crises he has inherited. Hopefully, for all of us worldwide, President Obama will show over and over again that he deserves the popularity.
The view of A.A. Gill, of London, is clearly expressed in the title of his article where he describes the President as "Larger Than Life". He seems to take President Obama and First Lady Michele Obama as a breath of fresh air among stale and disconnected world leaders. After reading this article, one would envision the Obamas as vibrant, young, and most importantly extremely humble and gracious people. He focuses on the character of President and First Lady Obama as the most important factor in their future success. However, he also notes something that I think is extremely important, people around the entire world love the Obamas. He describes President Obama as the "only popular politician left in the world." This has immeasurable importance now that every issue has become globalized. In contrast to the isolationist personality of President Bush, President Obama has gone around the world impressing both world leaders and world citizens. The fact that world leaders want to be associated with him will prove very useful foreign relations in the future. It is also quite comforting to know that our President is held in such high regard globally.
Amélie Nothomb, of France, wrote a similarly praising article. Her position is that not only do people around the world love our President, but that they are jealous of us for having such an amazing leader. She also states that the leaders are even more envious, "wondering why they are not loved as well as Barack Obama is loved." The general tone of Ms. Nothomb's article is that people worldwide worship President Obama, she even states that "Mr. Obama's anger is portrayed here as something holy." While I wonder if that statement takes things a bit far, the important fact is people everywhere appear to be very supportive of our new President.
With such high expectations globally, I sincerely hope that President Obama will be able to live up to all of them. I agree with both columnists in the respect that I am proud to have Barack Obama as the President of the United States. However, we do still have to wait and see how he handles the many national and international crises he has inherited. Hopefully, for all of us worldwide, President Obama will show over and over again that he deserves the popularity.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Financial Fool's Day
April first around the world is observed as April Fool's Day, a time to play pranks and have a good time. However, this year, the first of April has taken a much more somber tone. The G20 Summit took place in London, where world leaders gathered to discuss solutions to the international economic turmoil. In response to the conference, thousands of people gathered in the financial district of London to protest any aid going to "the bankers", among other things. While many stated that it was intended as a peaceful demonstration, the intense anger of crowd members soon became evident as violence erupted, according to this article from the New York Times. The protest turned into a riot situation amid uprisings against the police and destruction of bank property. People of the crowd smashed the windows of the Royal Bank of Scotland and emerged from the broken widows carrying items such as computers and destroyed them in the street. The video below shows the news reports on the events of the protest.
Personally, I applaud the efforts of the individuals who went to the protest and remained peaceful. These people stood outside in huge crowds all day to stand up for what they believe in. Instead of sitting at home complaining about the way the government is spending their money, these citizens took to the streets to advertise their dismay, writing "thieves" on financial buildings and asking officials not to let the "bankers" steal any more from them. While I do not support vandalism or violence, I have to question why American citizens have not been doing the same. After 700 billion dollars of our tax money went to some of the biggest financial institutions in the country and rapidly rising unemployment rates, it astounds me that Americans are not protesting in the streets as well. Besides, even if we did, would it get media coverage?
I wonder what would happen if what is depicted in video below had taken place in New York City. What do you think?
Personally, I applaud the efforts of the individuals who went to the protest and remained peaceful. These people stood outside in huge crowds all day to stand up for what they believe in. Instead of sitting at home complaining about the way the government is spending their money, these citizens took to the streets to advertise their dismay, writing "thieves" on financial buildings and asking officials not to let the "bankers" steal any more from them. While I do not support vandalism or violence, I have to question why American citizens have not been doing the same. After 700 billion dollars of our tax money went to some of the biggest financial institutions in the country and rapidly rising unemployment rates, it astounds me that Americans are not protesting in the streets as well. Besides, even if we did, would it get media coverage?
I wonder what would happen if what is depicted in video below had taken place in New York City. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
