There are a lot of critics that say that Obama is repeating the mistakes of his redneck predecessor by getting involved in a fight that has nothing to do with the United States. While I do agree that there could be a pretty good argument for that, I don't agree that the situation is the same, or even similar to the Iraq war. Bush went ahead without the consent of the U.N. because of either faulty intelligence, or made up intelligence. Either way, Bush had no right to go ahead with that war and that can be almost unanimously agreed on in hindsight. Obama, on the other hand has co-operated completely with NATO and the U.N. He has also been very clear of his intetions to not send ground troops into another blood bath in another Arab country. It is important for countries to step up in times like these. Otherwise, what is the point of having the U.N. if it is not there to help protect the people of the world. After all, I don't think we could find very many people that believe going into Europe to stop Hitler was a bad idea. It is important to stop tyrants like Hitler or Gadhaffi in their tracks, otherwise we are being complicit to important world events that could lead to mass murders. So why do I think this is any different than when Bush pledged to stop Sadaam Hussein? Because the intelligence that Obama is working with is the same as the rest of the worlds. The whole reason for going in to stop Hussein was based on intelligence that was never confirmed by the U.S. or any one else for that matter, but in this case, we have clear cut intelligence that has been confirmed by many countries through their willingness to participate in the "no fly zone" that the U.N. has chosen to implement. The basic difference is that it's a team effort. Although that may sound like an oversimplification, it's not, that's the way it is.  

thoughts on coverage on Japan crisis

The thing that really bugs me about the coverage on the Japan tsunami is how hysterical news programs tend to take away from the fact that people are suffering in Japan. The thing that bugs me even more is when journalists like Dan Chung of the Guardian posts a video like this one on the aftermath of the tsunami and people criticize him for exploiting the suffering of others. I think that is complete bull. It is important for videos like the one Chung posted to surface because people often forget that there is suffering going on behind all the hysterics and theatrics that the news tends to exacerbate without limit in order to keep viewers glued to their t.v. sets. Chung has been criticized for making a theatrical rendition of Japanese suffering and that videos like this one should not be made in a way that is a kind of entertainment..... While I do agree that the video is almost Hollywood like, I do not agree that there is anything wrong with that. Anyone who watches a video like that for pure entertainment has something wrong with them to begin with. Story after story, nuclear physicist after nuclear physicist has told viewers that even the worst case scenario of nuclear meltdown in Japan will have no effect on North America. Why can't that be enough for North Americans to shut up and think about the situation in terms of others and not themselves? It doesn't always have to be about us!

A Case Study in Apathy

       It is in my humble opinion that the media is what it is because we allow it to be that way.  I guess it could be argued that whistle blowers like Manning are few and far between because journalists face too large a penalty for exposing secret documents. It's the governments fault! No wonder members of the press don't like to say anything too controversial.  After all, Manning was doing the world a favor; getting the truth to the people. This is something to be commended for, not imprisoned for.

      Daniel Ellsburg, on the other hand did not go to jail.  He was, and is commended to this day for the leaking of documents that led to.... Well it didn't really lead to much, did it? I mean, he had a lot of support from his fellow Americans, and his actions are looked upon as courageous. He was thought of as someone doing a service for his country. But what did the people do with the alarming information brought forth in the documents he leaked.....NOTHING. More than nothing actually, they voted for Nixon in the next presidential election despite the documents that clearly undermined his honesty and integrity. Why? Because the public has a tendency to listen to the news, talk about it over dinner and then never think about it again. It's not that we can't handle the truth, its that we only care about it for a very short period of time. We don't think or talk about it long enough do anything meaningful about it.
      

      So then the next argument could be made that the press has failed as a medium for democracy. But this can't be true when looking at situations like Ellsburgs. He leaked the documents, the newspapers ran the stories even when they knew punishment would be imminent, the stories were published over a considerable time period and there was tons of publicity on the matter. It seems that all of these factors should have lead to an almost immediate reaction, either by the Nixon administration to pull out troops, or the public looking to push for an impeachment. That didn't happen. Oh well, I guess they could have at least voted for a new president next election in reaction to the news..... Nope! That didn't happen either. He won by a landslide!
      
      It is not that the press has failed as a medium for democracy, it's the public's failure for not caring enough about democracy in the first place to even want a medium for it. And the Elsburg case is a perfect example of this. So is it the media's obligation to inform us?  They do on less controversial topics like global warming, but you don't see everyone rushing out to buy a smart car do you? In Fact, it's the opposite, people are buying bigger cars than ever. Public apathy is far too high for the media to care about facts, and even when they do, society doesn't.

The blogosphere: Good for journalsm?

The blogosphere is a curios phenomenon that is a relatively new concept for me. Before today I have maybe read 10 blogs in my lifetime and this seems to shock some people when they hear this. When I told a friend this they responded by saying. “[W]hat, have you been living under a rock or something?” This comment made me laugh since I believe that it’s because I haven’t been living under a rock that I never got involved too much with blogs or things of that nature. Now that I have a blog, I feel like I have a voice. There are a lot of people out there who are completely opposed to the blogosphere. Why? It’s a great way to make your opinion heard, what’s wrong with that? If you don’t like it, don’t read it! When this is looked at in greater detail we may come to the conclusion that the blog haters have barely any idea what they are raging against. Don’t get me wrong, I know there is a lot of garbage to sift through on the internet, but that could be said for all forms of journalism, not just blogging. And just the fact that I have associated blogging with journalism just now may piss some people off since many would say that blogging is not journalism.

 Whether blogging is journalism or not is hard for me to say simply because I do not know. I could make an argument for both sides, although I would have to say that I think blogging has the potential to be the best form of journalism. One thing I am sure of is that the Blogging vs. journalism debate will go on for a long time.

When we look at the journalism that bloggers do we see that serious bloggers aren’t really all that different from traditional journalists. It could be argued that Blogging is the “fresh water” for journalism since it brings back the idea of the investigative journalist. An idea that has been lost over the years due to mounting political pressures put on news outlets to simply repeat information given to them.

One of the highest ideals that journalism holds is objectivity, but with blogging, opinion is at the focal point for most people. Some would call this a problem in the world of journalism since blogging has taken a very different stance on the way it gives us information. But maybe it is time to get rid of objectivity for a while and get back to some good ol’ common sense thinking instead of mindlessly providing information. This is definitely the strength of the blog and that’s why it gets so much attention.

Democracy is losing ground to idiocracy in Wisconson state senate

Protesting is now ramped in Wisconsin as tens of thousands of its citizens have taken to the streets to show their disgust of the proposed 2011 Budget Repair Bill. Republican governor of Wisconsin Scott Walker argues that the cuts and benefit hikes are necessary to get the state out of a $137 million deficit, and if these steps are not taken, the deficit will look more like $3.6 billion by 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/us/01wisconsin.html? What Walker is neglecting to talk about is the over $100 million dollars in tax breaks he gave to corporations and rich business men this year alone. So, when Walker argues that these measures are necessary to balance the budget, it is understandable for the middle and lower class people living in Wisconsin to be more than a little upset.

The idea of a democratic America seems to be increasingly on the verge of extinction when looking at Scott Walkers proposed bill. Corporate America is becoming more and more influential in the issues surrounding national and international policy. The line must be drawn and Wisconsin has reached a point of no return in regards to the decisions that policy makers such as Walker are trying to get away with. Walker should have a vested interest in the citizens he was sworn in to serve, not corporate America. After all, it was the working class that voted him in as governor, not the latter. Democracy only works if the majority of the people within that democracy are being represented, and Wisconsin is only a small example of this. Protests all around the world are popping up in regards to wages, job availability, and job dependability. If Walker is not careful, protests could escalate, and other countries like Egypt and Tunisia have verified this. Although they are extreme examples, even a fraction of the violence that has been seen in those countries showing up in Wisconsin could be catastrophic. History has shown time and again that the people tend to come out victorious in situations such as these, and I have no doubt that history will repeat itself in Wisconsin as well.