Political Blog #2: McCain vs Obama

After watching the first presidential debate this past Friday I had my own idea of who "won". I think that it was a very close debate, both sides made good arguments and, as well, both candidates made statements that i found immature and overly repetitive. However, when I watched the debate live, I was watching it with my room mate, who has an extreme bias skewed the same direction as myself. My room mate and I started discussing comments each candidate said while the debate was still going on, and because of this I felt I missed important points. So I took the time to watch the debate again, alone, and with no outside influence. The result of this was about the same as the first time. In my opinion I believe senator Obama won. There are many reasons I came to this conclusion and I'm sure that many people disagree with me and even find my reasoning naïve and simple, but so be it. Something major that both candidates did constantly that I found to be misleading was answering a question by criticizing the other candidate's viewpoint. This always led to the candidate that was attacked pointing out how the attackers translation of their policies and views was completely wrong. It made it seem like both people were saying the same thing in the end. However, I was surprised to hear senator Obama speak very clearly on a few topics. When he was asked about sending troops to Afghanistan he very clearly said that we should send more troops there and possibly to Pakistan as well if they are unable to act accordingly. This is something I agree with and have felt since our involvement in Iraq and I'm glad Obama was able to speak plainly about it. A few times, however, senator Obama was fairly childish. Making many comparisons to McCain and president Bush, he pointed out times where the Arizona senator backed the president on issues. Obama made it obvious that he feel that having McCain in office will be the same as having Bush back in office, something that I don't think any intelligent person can actually believe. Although I found Obama attacking McCain, simply because he is affiliated with with the same party as Bush, to be very low. With no real surprise, however, Senator McCain did something even worse and with much more frequency. It seemed every possible time he could, McCain would tell a story about going to a country or talking with a general or president directly, where Obama had not. it was obvious, and even plainly said at times, that McCain was pointing out Obama's inexperience. It seems like most of this presidential race has been the two sides arguing the same two points, that McCain is a republican and all republicans are like bush, and that Obama doesn't have enough experience. I personally don't think either statement is true, and either way, I'm very tired of hearing it, and hearing it during a debate seemed very inappropriate. Although, because of the repetition of McCain's comments on Obama's inexperience, I feel that Obama won, simply because he didn't find as many ways possible to say the same over beatten point. After watching the debate and making my own conclusions on it I looked at a few websites too see what other people thought and who won the debate. Most sites, including the political blog I'm following (http://www.bipolarnation.com/2008/09/29/the-first-mccain-obama-debate/), felt that it was a tie. I can understand this viewpoint since I feel that it was very close with both sides having their own pros and cons. I did also see a few sites that actually referenced polls conducted by CNN and The USA Today, in which concluded that Obama was the winner (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/3104504/Barack-Obama-won-first-presidential-debate-over-John-McCain-say-polls.html and http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/27/Poll_Obama_won_presidential_debate/UPI-20721222512164/). However, it does seem like the opinion of most news sites, which did'nt take polls, is that there was a tie.

Blog #2: The Language of a World

Throughout the history of civilization people have found many forms of media. At first it was mainly used as a simple way of identification and book keeping for things like proof of property (Crowley, 38). One of the biggest breakthroughs media and subsequently communication was the alphabet and written language. With written language people were able to write down ideas, information, and news it allowed for these things to then travel from one place to another, and for anyone to learn from them. Information which formerly needed to be passed down from teacher to student through speech over many decades would no doubt lose some substance after the ninth or tenth iteration, however written words would never change so information could be preserved in whole for centuries.

Although for all of the benefits to society that we could come up with, there are just as many negatives. Before the alphabet came about most written communication was in the form of hieroglyphs which were hard to write and took up much space, the alphabet solved this problem although it made many of its own problems. Hieroglyphs were easy to read, if you wanted to say "bird" you simply drew an outline of a bird, but the alphabet had to be taught and learned. Learning to read a write would mean that you were able to learn anything that had been written. This was also looked at as negative by some. Socrates believed that writing was a type of crutch for people to use instead of using their minds to remember information and also for people to simply read and memories facts without having a full understanding of the concepts, basically appearing smart (Crowley, 36). Socrates idea is interesting because I feel like many college classes work that way, you are expected to memorize information from a text, but not required to think critically about it or understand its origins.

The impact of written language on society was also very great, especially for kings and nobles. Letters and posters could be sent to all corners of a state to inform its people who its owner was and what rules its residence must abide. Writing allowed for areas to be controlled that were much greater than before, a kings word could spread much further than he could see or speak and his words would live on even after his death (Crowley, 37). This same idea has always been available to untruthful people in the form of propaganda. This can be seen during World War II in many countries but especially Germany, where Hitler would spread the word or victory, even when defeat was obvious. Even 400 years ago propaganda was being spread by Hammurabi of Babylon who called himself "mighty King, King of Babylon, King of the whole country of Amurru, King of Sumer and Akkad, King of the Four Quarters of the World" (Crowley, 37).

To me Written language had been extremely important and has evolved to be a part of nearly all aspects of society. Some people, like Susan Jacoby, will complain that reading is much less a part of our lives today than it was many years ago. I however see language everywhere I look. When watching television I am reading hundreds of words that are shown on the screen. Even playing video games, which many people feel is the furthest thing from a literary activity, I am reading thousands of lines of text which could rival most novels on book store shelves. Language is everywhere, and I think it is obvious to see how important it is to society.

Works Cited:
Crowley, David. Heyer, Paul. Communication in history-Technology, Culture, Society. Pearson Education, Inc. 2007

Gardner, Howard. “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading.” WashintongPost.com. The Washington Post Company. 17 Feb. 2008. Web. 21 Sept. 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502898.html

Jacoby, Susan. “The Dumbing of America.” WashingtonPost.com. The Washington Post Company. 17 Feb. 2008. Web. 20 Sept. 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html

Socialism of a Democrat

The media controls many things in the lives of most Americans. If every news station were to cover the same story, saying the same thing, then most of America would believe what the news said even if it was actually a total lie. As far as political campaigns go, the news and other media seem to control just about everything, especially during a presidential election. It’s hard for me to think of how I would be able to get information about the candidates if it weren't for TV, newspapers, and internet articles and I'm sure it would be the same for most people. However, because nearly everyone relies of media to give them the information about the candidates, it also means that the media is given exceptional amounts of power. One could even say that it is really the media that decides who the next president will be.

While reading though some of the articles on the political blog site Bipolar Nation, I came across a post titled “Masking His Socialism,” which quite bluntly claimed that presidential candidate Barack Obama is in fact a socialist. I thought that it was a ridiculous idea, at first, but the article did have many good points. Socialism is defined as “any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy,” which is basically a step between capitalism and communism. Of course anything having to do with communism is automatically labeled as evil by the American people, this was obvious in the way that the article was written. The entire tone of the article seemed to say that Obama being a socialist would be the downfall of America if he were to be elected. This was especially evident with the way the article compared Obama getting elected with Fidel Castro being elected. Not that I feel having some one like Castro would be a good thing for our country, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that Obama is just like Castro because he is a socialist. I think it’s hard for anyone to see a man like Obama becoming a fascist dictator, especially when he wants less money being spent on the military and more money being spent on schools and health care. The article actually uses the idea of spending more money on school as a negative by saying, “I mean, for crying out loud, he wants to recruit an ‘army of teachers.’ I’d prefer an army of soldiers,” which also makes mention to the fact that the author does have an affinity towards having a military-based country. A few lines later he quotes from another article saying, “And when the young leader said, ‘I will be for change and I’ll bring you change,’ everyone yelled, ‘Viva Fidel!’ But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner’s guns went silent the people’s guns had been taken away,” which sounds like a reference to the way Castro militarized his country, which the author just criticized Obama for wanting the opposite.

I try to take the media with a grain of salt when it come to political issues and I feel that this blog is a good example of why. Too many media figures have agendas and seem to care very little about supplying the country with the truth.

Kenitz, Dan. "Masking His Socialism." BipolarNation.com. 09 Sep 2008. 14 Sep 2008.

"Socialism" The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Blog #1: My Media

Ever since I can remember I have been addicted to the TV. When I was a kid I used to complain when my mom would make me stop watching TV so I could come to the table for dinner. More recently, I have stopped caring about the TV per se and more about media in general. I'm almost constantly connected to some kind of media whether it’s my cell phone, laptop or Xbox 360. Even when I'm in class, I usually have my laptop with me for notes and to check my email or if the class is exceptionally boring I will get on Instant Messenger and talk with my friends. When I'm at home I will always either be playing a video game or on my computer or both. Actually, video games are probably the media that I spend the most time with, especially since I work at GameStop, where I am surrounded by them constantly. Although even outside of work, I still play a fair amount of games myself.

To me, the word media is any form of information. Books, newspapers, cell phones, TV, movie theatres, even live plays and concerts are all forms of media as far as I see it. I'm not a big fan of most non digital media for some reason though. Reading books and magazines bore me, but if it’s a blog or an online article it’s somehow different. It could be because I enjoy electronics and as such my major is Information Systems. After college, I plan on working directly with digital media, so it’s important to me.

After hearing about the media deprivation project we are going to be doing, I honestly got a little scared. I'm really not sure how it will be possible for me not to use a phone to call someone, or turn on my computer to check emails and news. I think the biggest addiction about media today is the idea of always being connected to everything. No matter where you are in the world, you can watch a live feed of almost any TV show you want and talk to directly to anyone no matter where they are. I think this comforts people, I know it does me. Perhaps it’s an issue of not being alone, some primal wanting that people have to be around other people and all these new types of media make it possible for it to happen at all time. I think it will be interesting to study this idea and see.

http://www.bipolarnation.com/