While looking for an article for my last submission I stumbled across this one."Amid Soldiers and Mines in the Korean DMZ, School Is in Session" and I thought it was really interesting, plus I have a bit of a fascination for the North and South Korean issues so…. Here we go again…
The Korean War took place between 1950-1953. At the end there was a Demilitarized zone set up as a buffer between the two countries, it’s about 2 and a half miles wide. Within this DMZ there lies two towns, Kijong of North Korea and Taesung Freedom village for the south. A long time ago these two villages were used to compete between the countries. When South Korea built a tall flag pole the North outdid them by putting up the tallest one in the world. Over the years the propaganda war died down after South Korea obviously won the competition and the North Korean village, Kijong in now deserted. The Taesung Freedom village however, is up and running. In between 2 million troops stationed on either side of the DMZ is this town that people are given incentives to inhabit. The residents don’t have to do the countries mandatory military service or pay taxes, farmers are allotted ten times as much land as they would anywhere else and the town is riddled with little “gifts” such as a new movie theater. The Article is mostly about the elementary school in this town and I think its ironic that the article would cover the elementary school and not something more pertinent to the tensions this region is feeling. After decades, children have grown up and the student body dropped to as low as 6 students. New students are now being driven across the boundaries of the DMZ, passed the miles of barbed wire and minefields, every morning to attend the school which is guarded by 80 military service men 24-hours a day. The school is very well funded, as most of the town is, it has a wide screen TV in every room and 18 teachers for 30 students. This article explains more of a place and not as much of a new issue of event, at least on a macro-scale. The main issues involved here are inherently social. As children have been attending school here for decades, many have graduated through the years and I am sure that once they leave the town to head toward the cities and start their careers, that their status is elevated because of their home town. Also, there is now a waiting list of 18 names of children that are waiting to fill the vacancies that will be left by graduating kids in the future. This, I would also think, could become a status symbol for those who are accepted not only because of the minute numbers of children that have the ability to go to this school but also because I’m willing to bet that the families of these children are also taken care of financially for allowing their child to cross the fences of the DMZ every morning and go even further towards the dangerous North Korean Border. The mere existence of this town and its school is a symbol of the decades of weary peace that the two countries have been balancing for so long. It is imperative that South Korea continues to keep this village populated and running smoothly simply to continue to show the North Koreans that the Southern Koreans are still prospering and enjoying their democratic, capitalist system.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
New York times on Korean water control
here is another article from the New York Times, it describes the burst of water flow that came out of North Korea’s Hwanggang Dam in September. The water came rushing into South Korea killing a handful of civilians who were camping near-by a river. The article covers South Korea’s response, in which it has demanded an apology from the North and a full explanation. Apparently they have already received an explanation saying that the dam workers had to act quickly because the water behind the dam was building up to fast but the South doesn’t buy into that and wants a more detailed response.
russian train crash... terrorism?
an article in the new york times describes a crash involving a 20 car luxury train on its way from Moscow to st. Petersburg. apparently the crash was begun by a bomb, 15lbs. of TNT, that had been laid on the tracks and exploded once half of the cars had passed. a five foot crater, multiple fatalities and even more injury's are all that is left on the scene now. the article says the crash happened in a very inopportune location for emergency personnel to reach quickly, apparently all the roads to that part of the tracks are unpaved and full of ditches. the train itself is known as a means of travel for the "higher society" in Russia, a few public officials were among the fatalities.
To me, this doesn't seem to be in question... it was a terrorist attack, parts of the homemade bomb were found, along with the crater and given that the location was so remote, and the train was a viable means of transportation for important government officials i couldn't see how anyone would argue otherwise. the article goes on to explain Russia's more recent history with terrorist attacks, mentioning multiple times the Chechnya's and their past terrorist activity against Russia. personally, i don't believe that there will be much in the way of investigation, at least i doubt we will find out who planted it unless some group claims responsibility. but once again, a needless attack has taken innocent lives in the name of some movement that probably has very little to do with anyone on board that train.
To me, this doesn't seem to be in question... it was a terrorist attack, parts of the homemade bomb were found, along with the crater and given that the location was so remote, and the train was a viable means of transportation for important government officials i couldn't see how anyone would argue otherwise. the article goes on to explain Russia's more recent history with terrorist attacks, mentioning multiple times the Chechnya's and their past terrorist activity against Russia. personally, i don't believe that there will be much in the way of investigation, at least i doubt we will find out who planted it unless some group claims responsibility. but once again, a needless attack has taken innocent lives in the name of some movement that probably has very little to do with anyone on board that train.
the nixon movie
hello everyone... i sat to do my blog and personally, i just don't feel like talking about the news. i get pretty tired of the media in general so i wanted to talk about the movie we watched in class, Frost Nixon. now personally, i dint really know much in the way of details when it comes to Nixon's presidency but i can imagine from watching the movie, the type of chaotic phenomenon that must have been going on in America during that time. we have all seen what the country does when mass popular opinion relinquishes its support of an American president and Nixon's case must have been much of the same, which brings me to my next point... although GW bush's presidency cant be followed parallel to Nixon's i would still like to make a few comparisons. simply, if i were GWB i wouldn't want to take part in any interviews, talk shows or even pictures. after all the mass criticisms during his presidency i wouldn't want to come out of the house for a few months. the same goes for Nixon, it was to my surprise that he was interested in taking part in those interviews to begin with but what i really don't get is why he answered the tough questions like that. the movie made it very clear that the two parties had a contract and also that Nixon was a man of conversational genius. so then... why, after all of the heat he felt in washington and the months he had to let it settle down a bit would he feel inclined to tell the truth to an interviewer who he viewed as "below him"? what i would like to know, is exactly how accurate is the movie in comparison to the real life events, on and off of the interview cameras... just a thought...
Friday, November 27, 2009
border patrol?
id like to pose a question, something that i have wondered for a while; maybe someone can shed some light on the topic. in january of 2008 i took a trip to san diego for my 21st birthday to visit a friend. during the trip my friend and i went along with a few of his friends to Tiawana mexico for a night to celebrate. now what confused me, and has become more and more perplexing as time has gone on is that during our excursion i didnt see any thing involving a border control. there was no booth, no toll area and no gates. we drove right into mexico and later that night drove right out on some highway only to see a "welcome to the united states" sign and literally nothing else.
my confusion comes into play everytime i see something on the news about how border patrol is so strict and that they have been ramping up their protection. how can this be possible if not to long ago i was able to enter and exit as easily as i would drive to school and back. i could have brought 20 mexicans and a hundred pounds of cocaine with me if i had desired and so everytime i hear about border patrol i wonder if i just happened to go there just before the border began to close or if tiawana is some type of non sanctioned area or what... if anyone has any ideas id love to hear them
my confusion comes into play everytime i see something on the news about how border patrol is so strict and that they have been ramping up their protection. how can this be possible if not to long ago i was able to enter and exit as easily as i would drive to school and back. i could have brought 20 mexicans and a hundred pounds of cocaine with me if i had desired and so everytime i hear about border patrol i wonder if i just happened to go there just before the border began to close or if tiawana is some type of non sanctioned area or what... if anyone has any ideas id love to hear them
is obama safe?
i got on yahoo today and saw a little story about a mishap that the secret service had while protecting the president. apparently, a couple by the name of the salahis were cleared to enter the white house during a dinner in honor of the Indian prime minister. they were not on the guest list and were allowed to enter anyway after passing through the metal detectors. no harm was done. the spokesman for the secret service commented however, that they should get the job done 100% of the time and although they have screened 1.2 million people for over 100 functions, even a single slip is too many. the salahis are now expected to enter a criminal investigation. what is interesting however is that there are pictures showing them with the president in multiple other events including in the glass case that the president and his family were in during the inauguration.
i think this is a pretty interesting story. its true, the president should always be protected completely. with all of the public functions that he attends the odds of someone trying to harm him are great, especially with all of the dramatic politics that have seemed continuous since the election. whether you like the president or not, it is never a good thing for the country to loose one to an assassination. my question concerns the fact that they have been seen with Obama before, and during the inauguration, in the glass case, i cant imagine this slipping so many times before. i would think that this could only mean that they have been cleared by the secret service before and were simply not invited to this particular event. this seems to be more of a misunderstanding than a criminal case.
it is difficult to make these assumptions however, at least without knowing more about the couple; but the article says they are participating in the new show, housewives of Washington DC. All of these facts lead me to believe that the couple are not a threat to the president but the fact still stands that these types of things should never happen. luckily, i believe this is the first time i have ever heard of this type of thing
i think this is a pretty interesting story. its true, the president should always be protected completely. with all of the public functions that he attends the odds of someone trying to harm him are great, especially with all of the dramatic politics that have seemed continuous since the election. whether you like the president or not, it is never a good thing for the country to loose one to an assassination. my question concerns the fact that they have been seen with Obama before, and during the inauguration, in the glass case, i cant imagine this slipping so many times before. i would think that this could only mean that they have been cleared by the secret service before and were simply not invited to this particular event. this seems to be more of a misunderstanding than a criminal case.
it is difficult to make these assumptions however, at least without knowing more about the couple; but the article says they are participating in the new show, housewives of Washington DC. All of these facts lead me to believe that the couple are not a threat to the president but the fact still stands that these types of things should never happen. luckily, i believe this is the first time i have ever heard of this type of thing
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
FOX and CNN.... at it again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM1f5xrOfGU
In this clip Cnn's Rick Sanchez struck back at fox news for a small add that fox put out in the Washington post... the add had a picture of the tea party protests with a mass sea of people marching on washington and sayed across the top, "how did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN miss this?" at the bottom it says "fox news, we cover all the news"...
Rick wasnt to happy about this, in fact his stern tone of voice throughout the entire segment seems to show that he takes this add extreemly personally, if you watched it, im sure you know what mean. he starts by saying that there has been a lie.... so horrenous in fact that he cannot just sit around and take it. he then goes on to say "yes, i'm talking to you fox news, you, who claim to be fair and balanced... at what!? i wonder..." he continues to talk about the allegation that CNN and its fellow media friends did not cover the tea party protests and then, very sarcastically, shows four clips with four different CNN reporters in the feild at the rally, each clip with its own ending comments and lead into the next.
then he shows a CNN reporter who has been riding along with road trip protesters for weeks and gives us a clip of him talking about how many of these people refer to obama as hitler and other rediculous things, and then... back to the news room to ride out his glory after proving fox wrong.
next he shows the add again, which has a picture of the protest with a straight on view of congress and all the people in front of it, and compares it to the tower camera that CNN used to brodcast over the rally. although it is obvously not the same angle rick alleges either that they used CNNs tower camera shot for their add (which would make no sense at all) or that they tried to replicate CNNs angle... wither way, that part was a bad argument.
he then continues to a clip of the bill o'riely show, this 3-4 second bleep of bill speeking says "CNN as we mentioned covered the anti-obama protest of course but, ran into a bit of trouble".
here you can see the delight on ricks face as he found a FOX news clip denoucing the allegation in their add.
now it seems that rick is finally done with his "showing proof that cnn covered it" segment and there is no question that the add was wrong and fox was lying.
next he says, "heres the fact, we DID cover the event, what we DIDNT do is promote the event", he goes on to explain to fox news that a media network is supposed to be objective and show the people whats going on without a bias... i thought that was kinda funny.
his last statement i think says everything he wanted to get out, "when thousands of americans showed up at the nations capital to protest big government, we covered it, with 4 correspondants, 2 sattelite trucks, multiple live interviews, law makers on the record and conversations with attendees. by the way, we've put a call into fox news for a comment, and we EXPECT an appology."
he ends it by quoting what he says is a "very pithy phrase", adressing fox news his last words are, you lie...
any thoughts?
In this clip Cnn's Rick Sanchez struck back at fox news for a small add that fox put out in the Washington post... the add had a picture of the tea party protests with a mass sea of people marching on washington and sayed across the top, "how did ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN miss this?" at the bottom it says "fox news, we cover all the news"...
Rick wasnt to happy about this, in fact his stern tone of voice throughout the entire segment seems to show that he takes this add extreemly personally, if you watched it, im sure you know what mean. he starts by saying that there has been a lie.... so horrenous in fact that he cannot just sit around and take it. he then goes on to say "yes, i'm talking to you fox news, you, who claim to be fair and balanced... at what!? i wonder..." he continues to talk about the allegation that CNN and its fellow media friends did not cover the tea party protests and then, very sarcastically, shows four clips with four different CNN reporters in the feild at the rally, each clip with its own ending comments and lead into the next.
then he shows a CNN reporter who has been riding along with road trip protesters for weeks and gives us a clip of him talking about how many of these people refer to obama as hitler and other rediculous things, and then... back to the news room to ride out his glory after proving fox wrong.
next he shows the add again, which has a picture of the protest with a straight on view of congress and all the people in front of it, and compares it to the tower camera that CNN used to brodcast over the rally. although it is obvously not the same angle rick alleges either that they used CNNs tower camera shot for their add (which would make no sense at all) or that they tried to replicate CNNs angle... wither way, that part was a bad argument.
he then continues to a clip of the bill o'riely show, this 3-4 second bleep of bill speeking says "CNN as we mentioned covered the anti-obama protest of course but, ran into a bit of trouble".
here you can see the delight on ricks face as he found a FOX news clip denoucing the allegation in their add.
now it seems that rick is finally done with his "showing proof that cnn covered it" segment and there is no question that the add was wrong and fox was lying.
next he says, "heres the fact, we DID cover the event, what we DIDNT do is promote the event", he goes on to explain to fox news that a media network is supposed to be objective and show the people whats going on without a bias... i thought that was kinda funny.
his last statement i think says everything he wanted to get out, "when thousands of americans showed up at the nations capital to protest big government, we covered it, with 4 correspondants, 2 sattelite trucks, multiple live interviews, law makers on the record and conversations with attendees. by the way, we've put a call into fox news for a comment, and we EXPECT an appology."
he ends it by quoting what he says is a "very pithy phrase", adressing fox news his last words are, you lie...
any thoughts?
letterman under fire?
David Letterman has had sex with female employees... anyone angry about that? anyone perturbed? no, in fact i'm not even surprised. i think the only one who may have been surprised by that are the people in his immediate family. even his mother was quoted saying she couldnt wait to see the show where he would talk about it. for anyone thats interested heres the 9 min link where he talks about it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SriJ3WOZaXU
when i first heard about this on CNN this afternoon, i was assuming that it was going to be a big deal, why might you ask? because of the way they potrayed it. the headline at the bottom read, "david lettermans extortion scandal". now i dont know if that is the best way to put it, obviously my first thoughts were that he was in jail and facing charges of extortion but then i got on youtube and watched what he had to say only to finally realize that some idiot, who works for letterman found out that he has had sex with some of his female employees and decided to try and blackmail him for 2 million dollars. apparently the man took some of the "evidence" in his repetuar and put it into a package, along with a note to letterman designed to scare him into paying and left it in david lettermans car, in the back seat. this probably would have freaked me out too, but what this idiot did was meet with letterman and his lawyer 3 times to get the process finished and eventually ended up with a fake 2 million dollar check and an arrest.
thought this was pretty interesting.... what do yall think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SriJ3WOZaXU
when i first heard about this on CNN this afternoon, i was assuming that it was going to be a big deal, why might you ask? because of the way they potrayed it. the headline at the bottom read, "david lettermans extortion scandal". now i dont know if that is the best way to put it, obviously my first thoughts were that he was in jail and facing charges of extortion but then i got on youtube and watched what he had to say only to finally realize that some idiot, who works for letterman found out that he has had sex with some of his female employees and decided to try and blackmail him for 2 million dollars. apparently the man took some of the "evidence" in his repetuar and put it into a package, along with a note to letterman designed to scare him into paying and left it in david lettermans car, in the back seat. this probably would have freaked me out too, but what this idiot did was meet with letterman and his lawyer 3 times to get the process finished and eventually ended up with a fake 2 million dollar check and an arrest.
thought this was pretty interesting.... what do yall think?
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Theres something wrong with bill o'reilly
[ok so as hard as i tried, i couldn't figure out how to post this video on my blog. here is the URL, its a 4 min clip and its very interesting, basically bill o'rielly gets overly frustrated with a guest on his show and we see a bit of his TRUE side.]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BAFb97L3KU its called "Jeremy Glick vs Bill O'Reilly" on you tube
______________________________________________________________________
more than most people, at least out of the ones that I've had the pleasure of meeting, i believe that i have an pretty open understanding that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. that is as long as its not someone else's opinion which they've obviously picked up and began wielding as their own. you can usually pick the latter out of the crowd, their the ones that voice their opinion on any particular subject and then have no logical way of explaining how or why they have come to that understanding. but before i begin ranting and repeating everything i said on my previous blog let me get to the point. bill o'rielly is a card carrying conservative, in fact i wouldnt be surprised if he has a matching bumper sticker to guarentee that his audiences know how republican he is. his intro music dances around little punctuations that gleem slogans such as "the most powerful name in news" and "enter the no spin zone". well, honestly, i dont watch much news; i never have. i usually spend my time with south park, family guy and worlds wildest police chases. i get my news from people day to day and online alerts. suffice it to say, when i first saw bill orielly i wasnt watching with any type of cynicism and i certainly had nothing against him or his show. what did it for me was this clip. if your reading this then i'll assume you've watched it. just in case here's the outline. his guest, Jeremy Glick, is the son of a victim of the 9/11 attacks and is on the O'Rielly factor to show that not ALL of the 9/11 victim familes agree with the war in iraq and afghanistan. he brings up some pretty valid points, and everytime it seems that he is going to finish a thought, bill cuts him off with a childish sort of ranting saying things like "i've done more for the 9/11 families than you'll ever hope to do". ok, first of all, thats completely uncalled for. second, this kid is part of the constiuency that bill is talking about so shouldnt he have some sort of say in whether or not bill has done anything for them? back to the point at hand...... bill o'rielly is a well known, highly distributed source of political news, he covers global and domestic issues with politicians, experts and people who are known to be the authority on their discipline but he looses it when a kid from new york disagrees with him? he didnt even have anything inteligent to say in responce so instead he interupted jeremy as he was speaking throughout the interview and said "i dont think your father would be proud of what your doing here", or something like that. the man's job description should be, graceful under fire, aware of opposing view points and able to carry a conversation on your own show! with someone who doesnt agree with your political beliefs and instead bill did what any unaware, uneducated and undiplomatic person would do and resorted to childish behavior before cutting the segment short and comming back to appolojise for his guests misbehavior.
now i dont know about the rest of the american public but whether you agree with him or not that was uncalled for. personally, i lean on the republican side of many issues, i dont choose a side because i think its a warped system to choose a side but personally if i were a full fledged republican, like many of my family members, i would be embarrased. i showed the clip to my parents and they felt the same way.
after watching this, i was inclined to investigate o'rielly to see if this was just a "bad day" for him or if this is his part of his standard debating tactics and i can sadly say the man has a problem. he is highly hostile to those who oppose his strongly right winged viewpoint and the worst part is that he cant defend himself in the least. its not even a politics thing, heres a link to another video where he speaks to world renouned athies scholar Richard Dawkins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ
he doesnt competely loose it but he contradics himself several times and by the end of the interview i find myself feeling bad for christians after the way he defends his beliefs.
in the end, i just dont think that a man of this character deserves his own primetime news show and frankly i'd love to see how he got to the center ring in the first place because it surely wasnt due to his persuasive nature.
any thoughts? i'd love to hear them...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BAFb97L3KU its called "Jeremy Glick vs Bill O'Reilly" on you tube
______________________________________________________________________
more than most people, at least out of the ones that I've had the pleasure of meeting, i believe that i have an pretty open understanding that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. that is as long as its not someone else's opinion which they've obviously picked up and began wielding as their own. you can usually pick the latter out of the crowd, their the ones that voice their opinion on any particular subject and then have no logical way of explaining how or why they have come to that understanding. but before i begin ranting and repeating everything i said on my previous blog let me get to the point. bill o'rielly is a card carrying conservative, in fact i wouldnt be surprised if he has a matching bumper sticker to guarentee that his audiences know how republican he is. his intro music dances around little punctuations that gleem slogans such as "the most powerful name in news" and "enter the no spin zone". well, honestly, i dont watch much news; i never have. i usually spend my time with south park, family guy and worlds wildest police chases. i get my news from people day to day and online alerts. suffice it to say, when i first saw bill orielly i wasnt watching with any type of cynicism and i certainly had nothing against him or his show. what did it for me was this clip. if your reading this then i'll assume you've watched it. just in case here's the outline. his guest, Jeremy Glick, is the son of a victim of the 9/11 attacks and is on the O'Rielly factor to show that not ALL of the 9/11 victim familes agree with the war in iraq and afghanistan. he brings up some pretty valid points, and everytime it seems that he is going to finish a thought, bill cuts him off with a childish sort of ranting saying things like "i've done more for the 9/11 families than you'll ever hope to do". ok, first of all, thats completely uncalled for. second, this kid is part of the constiuency that bill is talking about so shouldnt he have some sort of say in whether or not bill has done anything for them? back to the point at hand...... bill o'rielly is a well known, highly distributed source of political news, he covers global and domestic issues with politicians, experts and people who are known to be the authority on their discipline but he looses it when a kid from new york disagrees with him? he didnt even have anything inteligent to say in responce so instead he interupted jeremy as he was speaking throughout the interview and said "i dont think your father would be proud of what your doing here", or something like that. the man's job description should be, graceful under fire, aware of opposing view points and able to carry a conversation on your own show! with someone who doesnt agree with your political beliefs and instead bill did what any unaware, uneducated and undiplomatic person would do and resorted to childish behavior before cutting the segment short and comming back to appolojise for his guests misbehavior.
now i dont know about the rest of the american public but whether you agree with him or not that was uncalled for. personally, i lean on the republican side of many issues, i dont choose a side because i think its a warped system to choose a side but personally if i were a full fledged republican, like many of my family members, i would be embarrased. i showed the clip to my parents and they felt the same way.
after watching this, i was inclined to investigate o'rielly to see if this was just a "bad day" for him or if this is his part of his standard debating tactics and i can sadly say the man has a problem. he is highly hostile to those who oppose his strongly right winged viewpoint and the worst part is that he cant defend himself in the least. its not even a politics thing, heres a link to another video where he speaks to world renouned athies scholar Richard Dawkins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ
he doesnt competely loose it but he contradics himself several times and by the end of the interview i find myself feeling bad for christians after the way he defends his beliefs.
in the end, i just dont think that a man of this character deserves his own primetime news show and frankly i'd love to see how he got to the center ring in the first place because it surely wasnt due to his persuasive nature.
any thoughts? i'd love to hear them...
Monday, September 14, 2009
lets talk about politics
Who likes to talk about politics?... I'm not referring to politicians or news anchors, I’m talking about yall, anyone reading this, do you actually enjoy having controversial political conversations with friends and family? For me, it’s a yes and no type of answer. My problem comes up because it seems that every time that issue begins in conversation its usually following someone’s meaningless, undirected comment… "we're only in this damn war for oil!" and to top it off, these statements, at least in my "crowd", are often carried out along with excessive amounts of alcohol. I guess this could be another reason I’m prone to stay away. You see, I didn’t become a political science major because I want to go to law school or represent the great state of Georgia in congress, in fact I don’t really have any idea what I want to do once I leave this school. I choose this field of study because I am interested in being more educated about ongoing events and the issues affecting these global events so that I can understand how the worlds many different cultures work together, in some sort of way. So I guess it may be confusing why someone who voluntarily decided to study the subject without any goal in mind besides personal education wouldn’t like to talk about it in random circles. Well, the reason is this, it just amazes me how many people out there are absolutely and completely blind to some of the intricacies of politics, both domestic and internationally. To sum up one of the most controversial wars our country has ever been through in a statement which squeezes the multitude of obvious factors out of the equation and decidedly states that this entire war was simply a scheme to take the worlds eyes off of the truth, that we were going to Iraq for oil and nothing else, after oil prices have soared to new heights due to the effects of this conflict just astounds me to the point of silence. Instead of wanting to continue a conversation to help educate this poor, critical-thinking-deficient soul, I just want to turn and walk away looking for someone else to spend my brain cells on. (And by the way this isn’t a fictional example, I actually heard that statement and turned and walked away). I think what really pushes me out of those conversations is that I know that no matter what you do, 95% of the time any political argument isn’t going to solve anything, or change ANYONES point of view. No one wants to learn, they only want to throw out the last statistic they heard on CNN while they were in the kitchen cooking breakfast before heading out to the voting booths. I cant tell you how many times I have attempted to talk with friends about left v right, war v. peace or pro-life v. pro choice and ended up either in a debate that’s so heated that it ends up in a fury of very non-political talk or, even worse, that I end up hearing a plethora of complete non-sense in an attempt to back up my opponents side with facts and once again find myself astounded at the utter stupidity of the persons critical thinking skills, to the point where I have had to stop and ask them, “wait, please tell me you don’t actually think that what you just said is true, or even possible”.
Now please don’t think that I’m trying to say that I know it all, or that my views are always correct, I don’t and I have no problem admitting that. It’s the reason I want to learn more, but I am smart enough to see through the theoretical BS that people actually come up with, these conspiracy theories like: the bush family planned for years to attack the twin towers, to then start an unneeded war and get rich on the oil they are able to suck out of the ground while no one watches and then raise oil prices to cover it up… now they’re not all that crazy, but that is the type of logic I have encountered and it makes me wonder, it is the media what causes this overabundance of disconcerted views? Are there really that many people that have absolutely no idea what’s really going on in the world, and what’s most scary, was I ever one of them? I always hear that people from Europe despise the American people because of their narrow, hardheaded views and I don’t blame them. Now don’t get me wrong, I love this country, and I would go anywhere else but there is definitely something wrong when the majority of people who want to debate politics know nothing about the background of the issues their ranting about and believe 100% that they have the answer when experts, who get paid to solve issues haven’t been able to. Maybe it’s the oversimplification we get from media channels that like to sum up a 1000 year ethnic conflict that spans across 40% of the global mainland in a 15 second spot with a background picture of a guy in a turban holding a bomb, or maybe it’s the deep seeded bipartisan mantra which we have all learned to pick a side and sing for but something needs to be done to help spread the knowledge.
I read a bumper sticker that read “why do those with closed minds always open their mouths”, and another saying something along the lines of “I don’t trust people who decide their stance on an issue before they even know what it is”, obviously pointing to bipartisan mechanics where people simply put their heart and soul into whatever belief that’s been decided by party leaders and tweaked by late night crossfire debates. I think that together these two bumper stickers say it better than I have in this whole blog. Many of us pick a side and follow the decisions of that side without question, and proceed to debate it passionately without truly understanding anything about the issue and its embarrassing.
I may not have a full point here, maybe I’m just ranting and possibly showing my own faults through these words but, it was on my mind and I’d like to know what’s on yours so…. Type away.
Now please don’t think that I’m trying to say that I know it all, or that my views are always correct, I don’t and I have no problem admitting that. It’s the reason I want to learn more, but I am smart enough to see through the theoretical BS that people actually come up with, these conspiracy theories like: the bush family planned for years to attack the twin towers, to then start an unneeded war and get rich on the oil they are able to suck out of the ground while no one watches and then raise oil prices to cover it up… now they’re not all that crazy, but that is the type of logic I have encountered and it makes me wonder, it is the media what causes this overabundance of disconcerted views? Are there really that many people that have absolutely no idea what’s really going on in the world, and what’s most scary, was I ever one of them? I always hear that people from Europe despise the American people because of their narrow, hardheaded views and I don’t blame them. Now don’t get me wrong, I love this country, and I would go anywhere else but there is definitely something wrong when the majority of people who want to debate politics know nothing about the background of the issues their ranting about and believe 100% that they have the answer when experts, who get paid to solve issues haven’t been able to. Maybe it’s the oversimplification we get from media channels that like to sum up a 1000 year ethnic conflict that spans across 40% of the global mainland in a 15 second spot with a background picture of a guy in a turban holding a bomb, or maybe it’s the deep seeded bipartisan mantra which we have all learned to pick a side and sing for but something needs to be done to help spread the knowledge.
I read a bumper sticker that read “why do those with closed minds always open their mouths”, and another saying something along the lines of “I don’t trust people who decide their stance on an issue before they even know what it is”, obviously pointing to bipartisan mechanics where people simply put their heart and soul into whatever belief that’s been decided by party leaders and tweaked by late night crossfire debates. I think that together these two bumper stickers say it better than I have in this whole blog. Many of us pick a side and follow the decisions of that side without question, and proceed to debate it passionately without truly understanding anything about the issue and its embarrassing.
I may not have a full point here, maybe I’m just ranting and possibly showing my own faults through these words but, it was on my mind and I’d like to know what’s on yours so…. Type away.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
terrorists and the media
last semester i read about terrorism in the media during a reading for international terrorism. Bruce Hoffman, author of one of our books, focused on the medias role in terrorist conflicts. the entire chapter was aimed at explaining the symbiotic relationship the two players have in the international information market. one example he used was the PLO in Palestine during the mid 20th century. This resistance group was the first to discover the use of the media to further their cause. during a hijacking, the PLO invited news cameras from around the world to film their crimes and show the world what they were doing. now it is obvious why this is good for the media, and good is an understatement. it was media gold. middle eastern hijackers armed with automatic weapons landing three jumbo jets in the desert and holding hostages for multiple days allowed for a 24 hour terrorist watch. i believe the statistic they came up with was that during the few days during the event some sort of new coverage was aired every 7 min, or so. my point is that it was unquestionably a media field day. what did surprise me however was that this turned out to be a monumental boost for the PLO. they were very careful to show that they were civil to the hostages and provided food and water during the ordeal, so instead of the world looking down on them as dogs (as would be expected), for the first time the PLO was able to broadcast their message to an international audience without ever being directly interviewed on camera, a feat which they had not accomplished in over twenty years of pleading to leaders around the world in different diplomatic arenas. another point made by Hoffman was that the medias involvement caused panic among the masses. updated coverage 24 hours a day left ample time to milk the story and media outlets took full advantage of it. when new updates were not available, they would air the heart touching interviews of family and friends of the hostages and day and night held live debates over what Washington should do. in the same situation without media involvement, decision makers in Washington would have been able to think critically about the situation and respond accordingly; however, the public demanded action and the safety of the hostages were of chief concern. now obviously that would have been taken into full consideration in any form of hostage taking but the push for swift action forced Washington into a quick decision to give into terrorist demands instead of buying time for negotiation. international prisoners were released worldwide, over 500 i believe and almost fully because of the swarming media attention to the event. not to long after, another , less successful take over was attempted by the PLO with the goal to up the media coverage even more. in 1972 the olympic games were held in munich germany and a hostage takeover occured incuding olympic athletes taken by PLO forces. their demands were the release of 234 prisoners, again worldwide. a rescue attempt failed and within 24 hours, 11 israeli olympians, five terrorists, and a German policeman were dead. the event was estimated to have been watched by over 1/4 of the worlds population and again landed the PLO on the front page.
the reason i wanted to talk about this was because, since then, terrorist takeovers, bombings and attacks have shown a disturbing trend; media notification close to or shortly prior to incidents. there are cases in which terrorists have been known to calmly take over a building and the wait for news crews to arrive before shooting their guns in the air and throwing people around. they have learned how the west responds to the media and the ammount of pressure cameras can put on governments to act prematurely and it is not a good system. i am not proposing an alternative because we are so set in our ways, im not sure if a simple once exists. i would simply like to put this out there and see how all of you feel about it. so... let me know.
thanks guys
the reason i wanted to talk about this was because, since then, terrorist takeovers, bombings and attacks have shown a disturbing trend; media notification close to or shortly prior to incidents. there are cases in which terrorists have been known to calmly take over a building and the wait for news crews to arrive before shooting their guns in the air and throwing people around. they have learned how the west responds to the media and the ammount of pressure cameras can put on governments to act prematurely and it is not a good system. i am not proposing an alternative because we are so set in our ways, im not sure if a simple once exists. i would simply like to put this out there and see how all of you feel about it. so... let me know.
thanks guys
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
fox news v.s. aljazeera
i'm sure all of you remember at least hearing something about the recent Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip a few months ago. it was heavily covered in endless news reports for a few weeks as the story unfolded. well, i was interested in finding out more because at the time i didn't have much knowledge about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to begin with. a long time friend of mine happens to be from Iran and so i began to ask what he thought about the issue. not to my surprise, what he had to say wasn't being aired on any of the channels i had seen. i immediately assumed that he was a bit biased as were the news channels i had seen. when i asked him where he was getting his information he told me aljazeera, a news forum that his parents regularly subscribe to. so we went on an information hunt. it just so happened that the Israeli's were not allowing any press into gaza during the conflict; however, the aljazeera reporters were already there and filming so they had the scoop. we went on their website and began to watch videos covering the story. it amazed me how opposite their story was from our news networks. their take was that the Israeli's had been pushing the former Palestinians into the gaza strip like cattle for months and then proceeded to blockade the area from all deliveries, essentially drying up all the food and water resources for Gaza's inhabitants. they showed endless footage of injured and deceased Palestinians, men women and children alike. they had personal accounts of the Israeli's willingly killing innocent people during a search for their target, the leaders of hamas. they explained that the Israeli's had cut the power to hospitals and specifically bombed houses which had been pre-screened to find only innocent families boarded up in hiding. the way aljazeera showed it, the Israeli's formed the blockade to entice hamas to fight back and then used the "few homemade rockets" which hamas had sent over the blockade (injuring no civilian israeli's) as an excuse to enter Gaza and begin a sort of genocide. as you may assume i was startled, it was as if i was hearing about a completely different event, and aljazeera was certainly biased; however, they had enough video footage to prove most of what they were saying. after seeing this i went to fox news's website to hear their story and found a fox news anchor on video conference call with an English speaking Palestinian woman from Gaza, she seemed to have a considerable amount of education and was familiar with the american side of the story. as she was explaining exactly what aljazeera had reported, the news anchor began to get frazzled and instead of letting her finish, or attempting to learn more, he simply spoke over her on numerous occasions, insulting her intelligence and credibility. he even went as far as to accuse her of not knowing her own country and then had her line disconnected and continued to apologise for her ludicrous remarks after she was gone. it was astounding to see, especially when the aljazeera network was the only network present during the conflict, for the fox news anchor to act like that against a credible opposing viewpoint left me at a loss for words. i implore anyone interested to look at the two networks websites and watch the Gaza excerpts for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
