Rumsfeld Link
The Iraq War has obviously been a controversial topic since it started and has loomed over much of the Bush Administration. The Iraq War almost allowed John Kerry to beat President Bush in the 2004 election. The motives and management of the war have been questioned. Most of the administration under Bush is no longer in office, so it has become easier for them to speak on certain subjects. Should they? It seems like controversy would certainly occur no matter how they answer the question.
We talked about this in some way when we talked about people who voted one way and then decide that they were wrong and they change their view. I think it is certainly all right for a person to change their view and I even believe it to be very noble of them since they are in fact admitting that they were wrong. By stating that they are wrong, especially as a politician, they admit that were doing something that would adversely affect the people they represent. That being said, I think that someone like Donald Rumsfeld should not answer questions about Iraq because that affected so many people. It is also something that our country is still involved with currently. The context of the situation greatly affects how it should be handled. If Rumsfeld were to say that Iraq was a mistake then people may sue the government for wrongful death. It is a situation where there shouldn't be comments made until a lot of the smoke has passed over. I think it is similar to Robert McNamara. He didn't really talk about the Vietnam War until "The Fog of War" which came out in 2003. As a private citizen, I can admit that I am wrong and it is all right because not too many people would be affected, but in Rumsfeld case, he is almost protecting people and their emotions by trying to not talk about the situation.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Sleeping in Congress
Link: Sen. Boxer Rails Against Colleagues Sleeping In Their Office
In this video, Senator Boxer talks about how legislation has gone unpassed and that the Congressmen are abusing their power by sleeping in their offices. It is kind of a weird speech because she is trying to tie two things together that don't really go together too well.
Personally, I don't understand or see a correlation. First, I don't care whether a congressman sleeps in their office or not. There is no significant cost to the taxpayer. The only real argument they could make is that the Capitol is not for personal use. However, they aren't staying in the Capitol building, or their congressional offices because they have nowhere else to go and they are to cheap to buy their own place to stay. They are merely doing it because it is much easier to do and saves their time. I'm sure that the congressmen that do sleep in their offices would argue that it allows them to devote more time to working for the people and thus saving taxpayer dollars.
Based on the reasons that Congressmen stay in their offices should not affect the way that they vote on legislation. This is especially true when you are talking about a housing bill that would cost billions of dollars. It seems irrational to do such a thing and if a Congressmen was smart enough to get elected I would certainly hope that they would not vote based on something so silly as their sleeping practices. Also, based on the fact that Congressmen receive healthcare through the federal government because they are Congressmen does not mean that they should vote for every person in the whole country to have it merely because they receive it. I also do not believe that they are being "elitist" or hippocritical by not doing so voting for health care.
Senator Boxer must be confused. I do not see a basis to her argument and she lacks rational thought. I do not believe her speech persuaded me in any way toward her cause. The Congressmen do not represent themselves or their own practices when they vote. They represent millions of people who would otherwise not be represented without their congressional representation.
In this video, Senator Boxer talks about how legislation has gone unpassed and that the Congressmen are abusing their power by sleeping in their offices. It is kind of a weird speech because she is trying to tie two things together that don't really go together too well.
Personally, I don't understand or see a correlation. First, I don't care whether a congressman sleeps in their office or not. There is no significant cost to the taxpayer. The only real argument they could make is that the Capitol is not for personal use. However, they aren't staying in the Capitol building, or their congressional offices because they have nowhere else to go and they are to cheap to buy their own place to stay. They are merely doing it because it is much easier to do and saves their time. I'm sure that the congressmen that do sleep in their offices would argue that it allows them to devote more time to working for the people and thus saving taxpayer dollars.
Based on the reasons that Congressmen stay in their offices should not affect the way that they vote on legislation. This is especially true when you are talking about a housing bill that would cost billions of dollars. It seems irrational to do such a thing and if a Congressmen was smart enough to get elected I would certainly hope that they would not vote based on something so silly as their sleeping practices. Also, based on the fact that Congressmen receive healthcare through the federal government because they are Congressmen does not mean that they should vote for every person in the whole country to have it merely because they receive it. I also do not believe that they are being "elitist" or hippocritical by not doing so voting for health care.
Senator Boxer must be confused. I do not see a basis to her argument and she lacks rational thought. I do not believe her speech persuaded me in any way toward her cause. The Congressmen do not represent themselves or their own practices when they vote. They represent millions of people who would otherwise not be represented without their congressional representation.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Chrysler and Eminem
I know that we talked about the Chrysler Commercial in class today (Thursday), but I want to talk about it too because as soon as I saw the commercial, I knew that it would be the commercial that I used for my advertisement speech. I realize that a lot of the things that are being shown by Chrysler are obvious and what each thing means is also rather apparent. However, the Chrysler commercial shows similarities to one of Eminem's music videos, which is significant because Eminem is in the commercial. That similarity lies in Eminem's song "Beautiful."
In the video, Eminem tries to show Detroit, his hometown, in the current economic crisis. The video opens talking about Detroit's past and how it was one of the major cities of America, but it has lost that. Eminem shows what has come of his city by walking around the city and showing the parts of that are dilapidated. He shows the people of the city, but not the athletes, socialites or car executives. Eminem chooses normal people who are simply living their life to appear in his video.
These observations make the Chrysler commercial more revealing. It is similar and a sort of response to Eminem's music video. Eminem talks about what Detroit "used to be." Chrysler responds by saying, we are still around and we are Detroit. We are still doing what we have always done, there has just been hard times. Similar to "Beautiful", Chrysler shows normal people, mostly blue collar people and those people are shown doing their jobs. They show a respectable and hard working Detroit, where American flags are flown, there is great art, people are still working, the city's heart still beats, there is still a beautiful downtown area and there is still manufacturing in the city.
In the video, Eminem tries to show Detroit, his hometown, in the current economic crisis. The video opens talking about Detroit's past and how it was one of the major cities of America, but it has lost that. Eminem shows what has come of his city by walking around the city and showing the parts of that are dilapidated. He shows the people of the city, but not the athletes, socialites or car executives. Eminem chooses normal people who are simply living their life to appear in his video.
These observations make the Chrysler commercial more revealing. It is similar and a sort of response to Eminem's music video. Eminem talks about what Detroit "used to be." Chrysler responds by saying, we are still around and we are Detroit. We are still doing what we have always done, there has just been hard times. Similar to "Beautiful", Chrysler shows normal people, mostly blue collar people and those people are shown doing their jobs. They show a respectable and hard working Detroit, where American flags are flown, there is great art, people are still working, the city's heart still beats, there is still a beautiful downtown area and there is still manufacturing in the city.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
My White Friend Chip
In a turn from the last two blogs, this one is a non-political video focused around the stereotypes that we talked about in class. Stereotypes are common in American society and while some of them are portrayed in negative ways, Dave Chappelle jokes about them. It is clearly a joke because of how ridiculous his examples are.
First, his friend is named Chip. This in itself is almost a "very white name" if such a name exists, so that makes it funny to begin with. I don't think anyone would likely be offended by that. Then Dave Chappelle talks about the relationship that white people have with police versus black people. While I'm aware that in the practical world, there probably is some discrimination about the police against black people, Dave Chappelle pokes fun at this stereotype. The joking nature comes in the fact that since white people are well...white, they can basically get away with anything. It is completely unrealistic for a police officer to let a drunk driver go based on their race and any nonsense they use to get out of an arrest. However, I do think this is completely hilarious because instead of playing directly on the stereotype, he plays on the reverse of what the stereotype means. He says that since police focus upon black people that then this means that white people are out of the focus of police. For these reasons it is a very effective joke and statement on opinions that people may believe.
Dave Chappelle doesn't just make fun of this stereotype. His comedic style is almost based on stereotypes. Stereotypes are strong for comedians to poke fun at because these stereotypes are well known. When people are with groups of friends, their jokes are based on stories that we have with those people. However, with a random person we don't have these stories with them so the comedians are able to play on something that we all know, and thus have a connection with an audience of random people.
First, his friend is named Chip. This in itself is almost a "very white name" if such a name exists, so that makes it funny to begin with. I don't think anyone would likely be offended by that. Then Dave Chappelle talks about the relationship that white people have with police versus black people. While I'm aware that in the practical world, there probably is some discrimination about the police against black people, Dave Chappelle pokes fun at this stereotype. The joking nature comes in the fact that since white people are well...white, they can basically get away with anything. It is completely unrealistic for a police officer to let a drunk driver go based on their race and any nonsense they use to get out of an arrest. However, I do think this is completely hilarious because instead of playing directly on the stereotype, he plays on the reverse of what the stereotype means. He says that since police focus upon black people that then this means that white people are out of the focus of police. For these reasons it is a very effective joke and statement on opinions that people may believe.
Dave Chappelle doesn't just make fun of this stereotype. His comedic style is almost based on stereotypes. Stereotypes are strong for comedians to poke fun at because these stereotypes are well known. When people are with groups of friends, their jokes are based on stories that we have with those people. However, with a random person we don't have these stories with them so the comedians are able to play on something that we all know, and thus have a connection with an audience of random people.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)