Sausage

Blog # 15 - Vaibhav Shah

2004-12-06T11:47:00.000-05:00

At first when I entered Dr. Tryon’s English class for the first time, and learn that its topic was “Rhetoric and Democracy”, I was a little apprehensive. I was barely interested in politics, and the fact that I was an international student and knew nothing about American politics seemed especially daunting. Before coming to America, on learning that the presidential elections would be held in a couple of months, I had asked my father whether President Bush was a Republican or Democrat. This memory now seems absurd and mildly amusing. As the first day of class ended, and later when I read about Adonal Foyle and his initiative, “Democracy Matters”, I felt a little interested as to what exactly we would do. But as class progressed, my interaction with the media gave me all the comprehension I needed to understand the politics behind the elections. I now began to form my own political views. Unlike earlier, when I had realised myself to be a supporter of George Bush, primarily because I could connect with him, having read about him in the Indian media, I now gradually shifted to support the Democratic Party. This change was essentially brought about by the exposure I had to American politics, and the knowledge I gained about the policies and stances of both the parties on various issues. Besides being highly educative and stimulating, the class was fun. The interaction with technology that the class called for removed all restrictions from one’s creativity. Blogging, making a group video presentation and watching a movie will certainly be an important part of the highlights of this class, alongwith the improvement Dr. Tryon’s instruction brought about in my English.

Blog # 14 - Vaibhav Shah

2004-12-06T11:46:00.000-05:00

Response to Saumya’s blog “ The confusion with Florida never ends” in the group “At the Back”: http://attheback.blogspot.com/2004/11/confusion-with-florida-never-ends.html

Since the controversy surrounding Florida’s voter fraud in elections 2000, it has taken the spotlight in all voter fraud investigations. As America had expected, elections 2004 brought along the same confusion surrounding the votes cast in Florida. Saumya in her blog “The confusion with Florida never ends” addresses this important issue and calls for reform so that future elections are not marred in this manner. To support her arguments, the writer uses the example of three democratic counties having voted Republican. With effective use of statisitcs, she further proves how conflicting reaons for erratic voting patterns exist, thus leading to great confusion. In her blog, Saumya also mentions an interesting observation that with increase is voter participation, more space is being created for voter fraud. She thus calls for action to fill such gaps in the elections, and is successful in maintaining an unbiased view on matters.

Blog # 13 - Vaibhav Shah

2004-12-06T11:45:00.000-05:00

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=9s9c2pnhni7yfcnc0b6015u2n3gm78v

Students in different colleges across America participated in the National Survey of Student Engagement, thus giving an idea of how much students study, participate in various activities and rate their college experience. Eric Hoover in his article, “Undergraduates Study Much Less Than Professors Expect, Survey of Student 'Engagement' Says,” talks about how college students have been studying much less than it is suggested by the faculty, don’t take their learning outside the classroom and spend little time exercising.

I, as a college student myself, do agree with the statistics the writer deploys to support his arguments. Despite having 17 credit hours, I barely study throughout the week, and as an end result, end up staying up late the night before tests. The urge to go out in the corridor and have a nice time with floor mates gets hard to resist, especially when you can hear them having a good time, while you’re stuck doing calculus. But the problem is not my grades, but being disciplined. A student basically ends up blaming the college of being to tough, if he has too much to handle in the last minute.

It is difficult to go out of the way and exercise, but I have found that if you get a partner to exercise with, its works out quite easily. An integral part of college life is also participating in co-curricular activities. As I haven’t been quite an active member of the student body, besides having done some community service, I just pacify myself by saying that this is my first semester and I am only settling in. College life is fast and quite an experience. To not regret having wasted it later on, students need to realize that they have to take full advantage of it now.

Blog # 12 - Vaibhav Shah

2004-12-06T11:43:00.000-05:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6405673/

Not even a month after the elections, would be presidential-candidates for election 2008 are being debated. As the Republicans settle down having won the elections, the Democrats are trying to make a come back. MSNBC News’ article “Maneuvering begins for 2008” discusses the options before both major parties in choosing a presidential candidate.

Unlike the elections held last month, the next one, four years later, will be open to new candidates, with President Bush’s cycle coming to a close. Many believe that elections such as the former one essentially check on the current president’s performance. With both parties putting forward fresh candidates next times, the odds should be evenly split for both.

In the Democratic Party, former vice-presidential candidate, John Edwards, seems a prospective presidential candidate. John Kerry has given the impression that he will not be contesting again, possibly owing to the complexity of that path as proven by Al Gore. The party has now realized the need to win at least some Southern states, and Edwards thus might have an upper hand being from North Carolina, even though he failed to secure that state for Kerry. Former first lady, Senator Hillary Clinton has also emerged as a strong contender owing to her widespread recognition and following. The article also talks about potential Republican candidates such as John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani.

The article offers an impartial view on potential presidential candidates. It is clear that it does focus more on the Democratic Party, but it is probably because of the party’s attempts to recover from its two consecutive failures.

Blog # 11 - Vaibhav Shah

2004-12-06T11:42:00.000-05:00

http://www.local6.com/news/3918352/detail.html

Since President Bush’s re-election last month, the Cabinet has had a number of changes. Out of 15 of the Cabinet Chiefs, 6 have resigned leading up to “a major second-term shakeup.” A few who have resigned: Secretary of State Colin Powell, Education Secretary Rod Paige, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. The article “Official: Bush Asks Rice To Be Secretary Of State” focuses primarily on the appointment of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice as the new Secretary of State and the world’s reaction to Powell’s resignation, and also analysis the roles other resigning chiefs have played.

As he resigns, Colin Powell has made it clear that his resignation had been planned, and that he is “pleased” with what he has accomplished. Despite his resignation, Powell plans to work hard till the end, following his usual agenda, and attending various meetings and conferences. The article names various countries and diplomats who have praised Powell for his work, despite having differences with USA over certain issues. It also mentions that many have believed that Powell was not an extremist, and has diverged from more belligerent members of the administration over issues such as Iraq and other foreign policy matters. The article thus hints to the reader that Powell might have been forced to support positions from which he differed.

The article summarizes the achievements and failures of the three other chiefs. It mentions Energy Secretary Abraham’s success in protecting nuclear materials and criticizes his energy plan as a whole, which also led to a rise in gas prices. Paige is praised for his work behind “No Child Left Behind”, but attention is drawn to his comment on the National Education Association being a “terrorist organization.” It also praises the Agriculture Secretary for working hard in fighting against the mad cow disease.

The article thus does not show any political affiliations, but draws attention to the number of resignations being handed in, in the Bush Administration, immediately after the elections.

Blog # 10 - Vaibhav Shah

2004-12-06T11:40:00.000-05:00

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8852

The elections held last month have left many wondering which issues did actually matter to the electorate, and what the loosing party’s shortcomings were. Jared Bernstein’s “It’s Still the Economy, Stupid” addresses the important question of whether the state of the economy played an important role in the elections. Berstein’s rhetoric is effectively structured in its appeal to readers having various political affiliations.

The writer strongly disagrees with the pundits’ opinion that one of the many lessons learnt of the elections was that owing to the stability of the American economy, its people have moved onto more demanding issues. He accepts the fact that the economy does play a smaller role in influencing the elections today, but conveys that certain exclusive issues are being confused for permanent ones, thus distorting peoples’ opinions.

Bernstein, to support his argument, refutes six assertions made by such pundits that the economy does not matter. He notes that the Republicans, while campaigning, have been smart to deviate from the topic of the economy, and have talked very little about it as well, in the Republican National Convention. Since the time when Bush has become the President, the economy has gone down. So what the Republican Party has done is that it focused on the condition of the economy only during the last four months, during which it has improved, drawing attention away from its decline in the long run. They have even gone to the extent of saying, “Ignore the depth of the hole you’re in, and focus on the fact that you’re finally climbing out.”

The writer refers to facts and statistics to back his arguments. He points out that according to the National Election Exit Poll, 20% of those who polled, stated the economy to be their primary concern, and that 80% of those supported John Kerry. With rise in globalization, technology and outsourcing, the economy is faced with many problems. For the economy to influence the electorate’s decision, the electorate must believe in the candidate’s ability to tackle and reform these problems. The writer even suggests that the fall in the importance of the economy could be due to ineffectiveness on the part of John Kerry’s campaigning.

The condition of the economy has been hidden by transient issues like Iraq and Homeland Security. Jared Bernstein thus advises the Democratic Party to be smarter next time in promoting the issue of the economy, as it does matter to the electorate.

Blog #15- Bumjoon Kim

2004-12-05T15:51:00.000-05:00

The 2005 budget bill is passed by the Republican-led Congress recently. This article is talking about 2 percent cut of funding for the National Science Foundation. It is not only the United States’ assignment, but also the world’s assignment of developing an alternative energy resource. The weakness in this article is that the reason the author thinks the budget for the National Science Foundation is based on a few people who works in a science field. Shirley Ann Jackson, the president of Rensselaer Polytechnic and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, says the U.S. won’t have the scientific foundation to sustain its high standard of living in 15 or 20 years. I fully understand his authority in the field, but his idea can be biased because he was opposed by the legislation. This article tries to avoid being offended against the President Bush of not saying he has a background of the oil companies. However, it is just my suggestion of saying it could be more effective way to say he might try to delay the development of the alternative energy resource to protect his constituency. This article tries to tempt the President Bush to develop the alternative energy is like China for the President Nixon or the moon for J.F.K. What I think is that fly to the moon project was one of the measurement of the U.S. energies and skills, and also competition against the Soviet Union. On the other hand, developing alternative energy is far more practical than going for the Moon, and it is the time-limited project that should be done on time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/opinion/05friedman.html

Blog #14 - Bumjoon Kim

2004-12-05T15:21:00.000-05:00

This E. J. Dionne Jr.’s article criticizes about the recent legislation that bars military recruiters from campuses without the risk of losing federal money. He points out that this law will intensify the current gap in our military and our society. It quoted a former Navy secretary Lehman’s word, ‘our all-volunteer force, for all its many virtues, is not representative of American society’. What it means is that our military is mostly consisted of the poor and minority groups rather than upper middle class. However, this article failed to explain the connection between members of military and members of society makes something positive. We can assume the military can have a sense of incongruity, and the article says the military is becoming more conservative and more politically active than ever before. But judging whether the big group is conservative or liberal, or whether politically active or not is more likely opinion than the fact. It failed to describe the stats or records showing the tendency of the military. Another mistake in this article is that it doesn’t compare the positive side of the legislation and the negative side of it. In the beginning of the article, it says ambiguously like ‘whatever the merits of the ruling, the idea of keeping recruiters away from elite universities is a large mistake’. Even after the author successfully pointed out the negative aspects of the law, we’re not sure whether the legislation is conclusively good or bad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30182-2004Dec2.html

Blog #13 - Bumjoon Kim

2004-12-03T22:06:00.000-05:00

Everyone recognizes the need of reform Social Security. The government actually is trying privatization to solve the problem now facing. It may because birthrate is decreasing and average life span is increasing. As time goes on it’s inevitable to see payments going up and benefits going down. Social Security is very sensitive issue, because it directs people’s own interest. It’s good to see American companies do well in worldwide, and a right of minorities is protected. However, Social Security is the future of yourself, and how you would live on your old age. The emergency surgery is needed on Social Security, but everyone also have anxiety of changing on their plan. It’s the change in order to make a positive contribution, but no one is confident that it won’t go wrong. The government is trying something that is extremely sensitive for people, and also thinks it could go wrong. I think what the government should do from now on is that they should convince themselves even though they’re not sure about the outcome. Since they decided what to do, they have to be confident in order to comfort the nation, and try their best to satisfy people. There is an expected part for this administration on Social Security issue, and that is doing something. Of course, it isn’t doing anything, so they have to be prudent of choosing a right plan. But if they are too much concerned about the public opinion, and just spending time on a desk theory, they are not doing what the time’s asking them to do.

New Homeland Security Appt.

2004-12-03T10:44:00.000-05:00

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041203/D86O71700.html

Bush continues to set up a good cabinet around him as people begin to resign and others jumbo on bored. Former NYPD commissioner Bernard Keric, who helped rally New York City's police force and its citizens following the Sept. 11 terror attacks, is President Bush's pick to run the Homeland Security Department. The post will be vital to the success on the war on terror. The person assigned to this new spot on the cabinet revitalized the New York crime system with Rudy Giuliani. They helped make it safe to walk through Central Park and to ride the train system at night. I hope that Keric will do just a good a job in protecting the United States from a different sort of violence. The war on terror coupled with the efforts of Homeland Security has almost nullified terrorist activities within the last few years. The job of Homeland Security is to make the people aware of the terrorist threats, and to keep a watchful eye for anything that looks to suspicious. The warning system, although mostly ignored, was important in keeping the United States Population on the lookout. The department knows that they cannot be everywhere in the United Stats, so the [government must have faith in the people to defend their land, and the people must know that the government cannot do everything under the sun. The United States has become a much safer place once we became aware of the nasty things that the terrorist could do to us. Terrorism was not on TV anymore it was in our own backyard. It became a major issue on the last Presidential Campaign, and it surly will until the problem is taking care of.

Blog #12 - Bumjoon Kim

2004-12-02T13:56:00.000-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/02/opinion/02dowd.html?oref=login

This is a Maureen Dowd’s article about there are always one tall handsome white male anchor with bespoke clothes, and no chance for women or black minorities. I found some contradiction in this article. She said those white male anchors have charming appearance, and every parents want them for husband of their daughters. On the other hand, she is saying the era of women’s coming. The reason why the network companies keep choosing those ‘typical anchormen’ is that they give more sense of security just as she said. It can be fair to say that it’s because the minorities never had a chance to make that image, but they chose different type of anchor, because the era of minority’s coming or reward for previous blame, it can be an another discrimination. As a personal taste, I like the variety of styles in news choice unless they seriously distort the contents. There are different types of people looking for different type of delivery, so I think it should be the future for news broadcasting companies. But if they choose women anchors just because there have not been any before, and other minorities are complaining if they don’t get one, it’s not even what equality really means. Maybe it’s the era of waiting for one more time. Just as quoted in this article, even the former typical anchorman even indicates the time for women anchor is near, and I don’t find any reason of the media pressuring network companies for a minority anchor.

Blog #15 - Terrorist, Pennsylvanian Governors, and the Color Orange

2004-12-01T11:28:00.000-05:00

Well yesterday the news broke out that Tom Ridge would be leaving his position of Secretary of Homeland Security after this term. This news has been met with a great deal of criticism on his competence and performance since the position was made in 2001. The media has been covering it pretty in depth and editorials are abundant like Mr. Ridge's Red Alert Day written in the New York Times. Many people have made fun of his color coded system to deal with threat levels in the United States. But weren’t they effective? Have we had any new attacks at home? Have concerns of attacks caused wide spread panic? Is the System easy to understand? Grading the system on these questions makes it seems as though it did its jobs rather effectively. The system allowed for Americans to know that there was a potential threat, with out knowing more than they needed to. The only issue I see that he didn’t handle well was the period of Anthrax scares. But who can blame them? This was a position made on a moment’s notice that had the goal of protecting our nation from terrorism. Being a former constituent of Tom Ridge I have a lot of admiration for him and feel that he took on quite a task. While 3 years after it started it is easy to cite errors in his work, but for the difficulty of his brand new position I think he did a pretty good job.

Blog #15 - Dan Grigoras

2004-11-30T18:44:00.000-05:00

According to a recent Los Angeles Times article, the Solomon law which requires that public Universities and Colleges allow for military recruiters may soon be ruled unconstitutional because it infringes on the right to privacy and freedom of speech. In the article “Campuses May Bar Military Recruiters,” Esther Schrader explains why certain Universities believe the Solomon law is such reprobation. The matter was recently brought to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. According to the decision panel, "The Solomon Amendment requires law schools to express a message that is incompatible with their educational objectives, and no compelling governmental interest has been shown to deny this freedom." More than 25 schools, including Stanford, NYU, and Georgetown filed suit against the pentagon on the matter in early 2003. The matter is just now being approached. Unwilling mandatory military recruitment on private University property like Stanford or NYU is completely inane. Why should Stanford agree to accommodate recruiters for something they might not even support? If military recruiters should be allowed on campus, the campus directors should not be required to accommodate their needs. The military should provide these recruiters with everything they need to do their jobs. Unfortunately, because of the possibility of losing hundreds of millions of dollars in the suit, almost all law schools backed down from their bans. They are agreeing to allow military recruiters on campus if invited by a student group or if they conducted interviews off campus.

#15 Is it Piracy?

2004-11-30T16:52:00.000-05:00

"Movie piracy thrives on the Net" is an article that attempts to describe one use of the internet. Every day people are downloading music and movies. But the real question is, is this a crime? The companies that produce these movies and music say yes. They say that it was not paid for and is causing them to lose money that they would otherwise have gotten. I say no. Every time you get on the internet there is a little thing at the bottom of the screen that says loading. These movies and music is just one more thing people can load onto their computer using the internet. As for paying for the movie, everyone who has the capability of downloading pays an internet bill. I do not believe that the producers are missing out on money. Most of the people download these things would not pay the money for the movie in the first place. After all, normally when someone is done watching the movie, he will delete it off of his computer. If the producers are so worried about losing customer then I have a solution for them. The best way to sell more movies is to lower the price. I don't want to pay $20 to get a movie or $10 to go see it in the theatre. If they cut the price by at least half, then they would have a lot more people buying the music and movies from store rather than the internet.

The use of Torture

2004-11-30T13:55:00.000-05:00

"Pentagon disputes Red Cross criticism" is an article about the prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay. Some of the things being done to these prisoners were completely wrong. It is said that prisoners were forced to perform homosexual acts. This is wrong for more than one reason. Perhaps the greatest is that Muslims believe that homosexuals go to hell for sure. By doing this, the guards serve to dehumanize not only the prisoners, but also themselves. However wrong this may have been, I would be surprised to hear that prisoners did not suffer in any way. Look at what the opposing side has done to our prisoners. They have beheaded them. This was their answer to our actions at Guantanamo Bay. It seems to me that certain methods are necessary to get people to talk. I would say that starvation is an expectable way to use in times such as these. I would also say that the use of temperature may be used. Is it better to "torture" a few men or have another 9/11 attack on the US? This is the question that should be asked.

Racism

2004-11-30T10:50:00.000-05:00

"NAACP President to Step Down" is an article written about Kweisi Mfume, who plans to leave his position which he has had since 1996. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the oldest civil rights group in the country. I ask why there is a need to have such organizations. The more fair we try to make things, the less fair they will become. I am a college student and I have experience much racism. Ever time I fill out a form which requires me to check a box indicating which race I am, I am experiencing racism. Is this box necessary? It would seem that if we are so concerned about racism, this box would never be located on any other than surveys. Job applications are the worst place to have these. In government positions, when a person is selected for a job, it must first be reviewed to make sure no racism was involved in the decision. Some interviews are done over the phone or even the internet where the only reason someone can know of what race a person is from the box checked on the résumé. This is racism. Race should not matter. The person who is better qualified for the position should be selected.

In response to Conservitive Calling

2004-11-30T01:19:00.000-05:00

I believe it is not the right idea to take gay marriage to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. It should not be brought up in an Amendment to the Constitution as well. I do not support gay marriage, but I do think that the issue is a state issue. Each state has the right to have laws concerning things such as gay marriage. I am a conservative, and I think that this very pointless arguments. The privacy of two people should be protected, and they should be allowed to do what they choose. I do not believe they should adopt because of the physiological effects of the homosexual parents. This is the only problem I have with the argument, but it should not be a big deal. Especially when we have terrorist attaching our country, and children not learning anything in public schools. The gay marriage should be a state issue and should not by any means be a national debate. The conservative platform is largely based on this issue and it seems very strange to me. It does not bother me. I think politicians distract us from the real issues by arguing about such fickle things as gay marriage. I am not saying that they should not have right; I just believe that states should discuss and handle it in their own fashion. The same way that America has functioned over the past 200 years, with the stats having their own balance of power. It is ashamed that people are not focused on the real issues in America.

Blog#14- Professors are liberal!? -Chris Clarke

2004-11-29T23:57:00.000-05:00

Academia, Stuck To the Left - Washington Post

In a shocking new study it appears that Liberals outweigh Republicans at many of our liberal art colleges across the nation. The study shows that the ration of Liberals to Republicans is 9:1 at the schools Berkley and Stanford. It appears that through the years this gap has only managed to increase. However, fear not George Lakoff says that there are more liberals in these institutions because “Unlike conservatives, they believe in working for the public good and social justice.", how nice. These prestigious colleges such as Harvard and the University of California contributed around 19 times as much money to Kerry as they did Bush this campaign season. Mark Bauerlein seems to think Conservatives don’t survive in the Academic world is because they are the minority in a sea of Liberals, something most of them probably find hard to deal with. But of course all of this brings up the question, are these top ranked schools really that diverse? I mean sure they have diversity when it comes to religion, skin color, and sexual preferences, but if your in the minority of political preferences, you are probably going to have a bumpy ride. Many students would agree that being able to go a class such as history and get the viewpoints from both sides or a side of their choosing would be a great idea. While I am not saying that some of these more liberal colleges “brain wash” students as some put it, but they really seem to make it difficult for those on the right to survive, as their papers and answers will most likely conflict with those of the professors, the people who decide the grades. A little political diversity never hurt anyone.

US Intelligence

2004-11-29T21:04:00.000-05:00

"Intelligence impasse mainly a question of control" is an article by John Diamond posing a question asking why the US does not have more intelligence on weapon of mass destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. The CIA is fighting with the military in Iraq over who get priority on the use of spy satellites. The CIA wants it to look in on the Iran weapons of mass destruction program, and the military needs it to check up on the situation in Fillujah. This bickering has caused delayed a bill to restructure the United States intelligence system. The 9/11 Commission pushed this bill into Congress with great momentum, but this seems to be failing. What the author is trying to say is that he feels that the different intelligences agencies should share the information that they have instead of doing all this wining that is going on. I agree with this. The article mentions something about one man taking control of the funds. This could help the flow of things. He would have the final say of who gets what. This could be an added possession to Bush’s cabinet or could be given as another task to one that already exists.

US business partner: Canada

2004-11-29T20:47:00.000-05:00

"Bush seeks to soothe Canadian relations," an article in USA Today talks of President Bush's visit to Canada in order to talk of trade and security. The first thing the author does is post a picture of a flag upside down, showing one Canadians dislike for America. The article begins on a negative note. This article informs the reader that The US and Canada exchange $1 billion daily. I knew we traded with each other, but I did not know it was this much. Canadians are angry over two main things. First, the US put a tariff on lumber from Canada. This makes since. It is better to tax things that come in to the country than things that are already in the country. Second, the US put a ban on live cattle from Canada due to the case that occurred last year. This also makes since. We do not want to have this disease come over the border. This is President Bush's forth meeting with Prime Minister Paul Martin. The Prime Minister would like to improve the relations that had been weakened by his predecessor, Jean Chrétien. Polls show that 80 percent of Canadians still agree with their ruling of not sending troops to aid America in the War in Iraq. President Bush is meeting with other misters and Stephen Harper, the leader of the Bush administration opposition.

Blog #11- Bumjoon Kim

2004-11-29T20:21:00.000-05:00

Life always isn’t easy. Even after the Republicans take control over all the levels of government, they cannot do everything they want. The Republicans may now be astonishing about their previous Congress members who have been worked through things without holding great majority. The President Bush declared that they will do what they want to do, and there’s nothing strange. The American people gave the Republicans the power to do, so it is reasonable for them to fully use that power. However, the Democrats are not dead yet. They have a power to delay the works in Senate by using filibuster. That’s the rule of checks and balances made by the founders. For the Republicans, the power of using filibuster might look reasonable, but it came as the greatest obstacle they have to face.
They still got a chance of getting over by changing the law. However, it’s the straight challenge over the nation’s greatest law, the Constitution. Americans have a history of preventing centered power and made a law of checks and balances, and that is the Constitution. They are now controlling the government, but it’s only a few years and they have a duty to keep it as long as possible. If they will be strongly offensive to the Democrats, their majority control won’t last long. This is the dilemma the Republicans are facing. They got the control over the government, but they can not finish important jobs because of filibuster. If they change the law, it might be the political suicide and they will give Democrats back a leadership. Time chose the Republicans for 2 to 4 years, and they must prove themselves worth it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/28/opinion/28sun1.html?oref=login&oref=login

Conservative Calling

2004-11-29T20:01:00.000-05:00

"Supreme Court won't step into Massachusetts gay marriage fight." Conservative tried to gain justice, and get the Supreme Court to overturn the legalizing of gaymarriage in Massachusetts, but failed. This is a subject that needs to be fought and won by the conservatives. Not only is gay marriage morally wrong, but it is also lawfully wrong. Morally, gays feel that conservative are trying to force their morals upon them. Is this not what laws are in the first place? Laws are created to force those who do not see the same as the government to behave themselves. The greatest law that homsexuals are breaking is Natural Law. What they do serve no purpose. If a group of both sexs of homosexuals were placed on an island, then they would be forced to perform natural acts in order to continue thier esistance. We live in a country that pride itslef on the seperation of church and state. Seeing that it was the church that created marriage, it seems that the church shoudl be the only one who should be able to decide who should be allowed to be married.

A Gun in the Wrong Hands

2004-11-29T19:08:00.000-05:00

"Man charged in hunter slayings in Wisconsin" reports a tragic event leaving six dead and two wounded. Chai Vang, from Laos, was found trespassing. After some words were exchanged, some of them racially related, shots were fired killing six and wounding two. This just goes to show you that guns don't kill people, people kill people. The problem is letting the wrong people get guns. The article did say that there is some confusion over who fired first. If it was someone in the party that was rightfully on the property, then I don't see a problem. After all, Chai Vang was trespassing. If it was Vang then he needs to at least be locked away for a long time. How many Asians hunt? I know this is the first time I have heard of one. It seems awkward to me to hear of an Asian hunting by himself on someone else’s property. If he were on a business trip, out with some of his business associates, I would not see anything wrong with the picture. It is not uncommon for people in sales to take their clients on outings such as hunting. But, this is not what Chai Vang was doing. Obviously, Chai Vang is one of those people who should not have guns.
So how can we prevent this from happening in the future? We should have a background check. I am not proposing that we ignore our right to bear arms. The reason this amendment was made was because back then almost everyone needed guns to hunt with. It should be used for the same purpose today. If not hunting, then for sport, such as shooting clay pigeons and other targets. This is a delicate situation, the limitation of arms. After all, how can one say who can have a gun and who can't?

Black Hawk Down

2004-11-29T17:53:00.000-05:00

In the article, "Black Hawk crash kills all seven aboard," the author describes a stichy cituation where can fingers be pointed everywhere. A Black Hawk Helicoptor hit a TV broadcasting tower. The author first talks of telivision company, who says that the tower was not working. This is fallowed by saying that the fog was so thick that one could only see half way up the tower. Jerry Pusley, general manager of the telivision station who owns the tower, said that it was not the tower that was hit but the cables. It almost seems as though the author is trying to blame the television company. One of the first things the author said was that the tower was not working. But, for the most part, the author did a good job of reporting this tragic news without bias. The article is well balanced with a mixture of talking about the telivision company, the military, the fog, and the black hawk design.

A Cuban as Commerce Secretary

2004-11-29T16:46:00.000-05:00

According to "Bush Names Kellogg CEO as Commerce Secretary," by William Branigin, President Bush has named Carlos M. Gutierrez, CEO of Kellogg and Cuban born, to be the next Secretary of Commerce. The title appears to degrade President Bush's decision, making it almost comical. People see Kellogg as representing breakfast. It is a fact that a large majority of people do not eat breakfast. It would thus appear that the CEO of Kellogg would serve as a picture of little importance to many Americans. The fact that the author stated that Carlos M. Gutierrez was Cuban means that he feels strongly about this. Perhaps he feels that this is a weakness. Or perhaps he feels that our government is under invasion. It would seem to me that someone born in Cuba would respect the blessings America has given its citizens greater than those who actually live here. Carlos M. Gutierrez would not get a say in the government where he comes from. If he were to speak out against Fidel Castro, he would be shot for sure. Any wealth he has acquired through his prosperity in the business world would be nothing in Cuba. It is a dictatorship controlled area, or at least it would seem. All Carlos M. Gutierrez's money would go to the good of the nation, in other words for the luxury of Fidel Castro.

Soldiers see blood infection

2004-11-29T16:13:00.000-05:00

According to "Rare Blood Infection Surfaces in Injured U.S. Soldiers" soldiers are getting a blood infection that is very rare. This infection has seen blood in four sites since January 1, 2002. While this is not that many places, the author feels that it shows a need for better infection control in the US armed forces. Perhaps the author is trying to criticize the Bush administration. Showing up in four places over three years does not seem to be a problem. It also says that of all the cases, eighty five were from the Iraq area. This is not very many seeing that this is not even a fraction of the military and not military personnel the US has stationed in Iraq. Paul Simao, the author, writes that the military hospitals normally see about one case per year. Seeing that in the past few years we have not been at war, it is most likely that the soldiers contracted it on the front lines and not in the safety zones as the author would have you believe. The infection can spread from patient to patient in the intensive care sections of hospitals. This case was seen in the patients who had lost limps during the Vietnam War. The spread of this infection can be stopped by normal sanitary conditions. These are washing of one's hands, swabbing wounds with alcohol, and identify those that are infected. The author implies that this infection is not just spreading in Iraq, but also all military hospitals, by saying that patients who have recently been in the intensive care of these places should get checked for the infection. It would seem that the author is dumping on the whole military as he tries to frighten citizens back home.

Economic Team Shake Up

2004-11-28T23:58:00.000-05:00

Bush to Change Economic Team - Washington Post

As expected President Bush is trading out many members for his Economic Team of his second semester. Many top spots are currently open and this could have a serious affect on how Bush carries out his economic policies in the future. It has been rumored that Bush plans to look outside the political spectrum to replace these individuals, something that isn’t sitting well with some Republicans who thinks this went against his campaign. It is an important time for Bush because he is expected to take on some challenge tasks such as Social Security reform and new types of tax cuts to increase the health of the nation’s economy. Without strong leaders it will be quite difficult for him to be able to get any of these plans. The president seems to be choosing strong business executives to help strengthen his Economic task force, which has so far received mixed feelings from all sides. However if Bush is able to choose a successful team with wide approval, it could be a sign of the success of economic plans to come in the near future. Of course nothing is for certain at the moment, except that the president had a great opportunity to set the tone for his next four years in office. Hopefully he will learn from past mistakes allowing him to strengthen his power instead of repeating his same mistakes and getting little done in office.

Blog #14 - Dan Grigoras

2004-11-28T20:11:00.000-05:00

In a recent Yahoo! article, former Republican primaries candidate John McCain is considering rerunning in the 2008 presidential election. William C. Mann of the AP objectively explains the motivation and outcome of such a consideration in his article, “McCain Not Ruling Out Run for President.” McCain stated to press officials that he’s not running for President, but he’s not “foreclosing the option.” If McCain does decide to run for office, he’s planning on disclosing the information in about two years. Should McCain decide to run and win by some chance, he would be 72 at his inauguration. Age could be a important factor in his decision to run or not. He stated he is going to use his “wonderful mother” who is 92 as an example to battle any negativities brought forth concerning his age while run. Although it seems kind of early to declare running for office, the race for President already began. Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, already has said he is considering a 2008 run for the White House. Considering the present time and prior false statements made by past “dead” candidates, there’s no reason for uproar quite yet. A few years ago, Hillary Clinton was almost a sure shot to run for office, but then one day, she just kinda disappeared and spawned again as a Howard Dean supporter.

Blog # 9 - Vaibhav Shah

2004-11-27T16:51:00.000-05:00

John Nichols, in his article, “Frist’s Fury over Filibusters”, tries to justify whether Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s attack on the use of filibusters in the senate is constitutional or not. Addressing the federalist society, the Tennessee Republican expressed anger at the chance for a potential “tyranny of the minority,” brought about by the threat of Democrats to use filibusters to impede corrupt, inept or ideologically extreme judicial nominees. Frist has even gone to the extent of declaring that by filibustering the nomination of some of President Bush’s nominees, the Democrats would “have effectively seized from the president the power to appoint judges.” The writer calls Frist’s rhetoric to be exaggerated and reasons by explaining that the Democrats have given way to most of the judicial nominees and have threatened to use filibusters to block the nomination of only 10 particularly objectionable nominees. The use of filibusters is critical to the running of the senate by the fact that in its absence, there would be no reason for the White House and the Republican Party to confer with with the opposition party. Frist has indicated readiness on his part, to approve the attempt by some Republicans to change the Senate rules, declaring filibusters to be unconstitutional. But this tactic is disturbing to even many Republicans, who believe that they will regret this decision when a future Senate has a Democratic majority. Frist has portrayed filibustering as new in the Senate, and something that could prove to be dangerous. Instead, filibustering has been employed time after time in the past two centuries. As La Follette, Republican Senator from Wisconsin, who has believed in supporting the right to filibuster, declares it to be one of the few methods of keeping check on “an out-of-control majority party” and purely constitutional.

Blog # 8 - Vaibhav Shah

2004-11-27T16:50:00.000-05:00

Alexandra Pelosi’s documentary, “Journeys with George”, follows George W Bush’s 2000 campaign and gives us an inside look into the relationship that develops between the pack, as the press group following Bush’s campaign came to be called, and the Republican nominee. The movie talks very little of Bush’s policies, if it does at all. It shows the audience how campaigns consist mostly of photo-ops and sound bytes, and not of debating policies or developing stances on critical issues. The film is shot mostly in the plane or the bus, in which the pack follows the President from state to state. Pelosi’s concentration on food is noticeable with its recurring appearances: bologna and turkey sandwiches, a squirrel eating nuts, birthday cakes, cheetos and more. Maybe Pelosi tries to signify through food, that the pack was dependent on its feeder. If a reporter ventured to ask a sensitive question, he or she would start getting snubbed. Throughout the movie, George Bush gradually grows closer to Alexandra Pelosi. For instance, her birthday is celebrated with four birthday cakes courtesy the campaign. When the results of a secret poll conducted by Pelosi declaring that the pack believes that Bush would loose leaks out, and she is snubbed by the entire pack, Bush chats with her privately about friendship and tries to raise her spirits. It is also amusing how Bush often teases her regarding her crush on “Newsweek man”, Trent Gegax. The movie also has a deeper tone in representing how the members of the pack start living as one family, alienated from their own. Pelosi does not make her movie a partisan issue, despite being the daughter of California Democrat Nancy Pelosi. This is probably one of the reasons why many Republicans have enjoyed the movie.

Blog # 7 - Vaibhav Shah

2004-11-27T16:49:00.000-05:00

“You matter, but your vote might not” talks strongly about why the Electoral College should be abolished in today’s America, which unlike earlier is no more a weak union of strong states. The writer, Cynthia Tucker, acknowledges the existence of the Electoral College to protect the interests of small states. She goes on to question its existence, raising important issues regarding how in most states, the votes are won on a winner take all basis. This, she claims, leads to the campaigns neglecting states which have already made up their minds. The writer goes on to observe how people have thus tried to make their votes count by voting in a state where their votes do make a difference. She also points out that how the Electoral College has resulted in a President who did not receive the most popular votes, not once but thrice.

This article carries the same message as “Abolish the Electoral College” but is different from it in some ways. Tucker’s article is aimed for a local audience with its references to local landmarks and how Georgia residents are voting in swing states, but fails to anticipate opposition, in which the latter succeeds.

Blog #15 - Rob Piatkowski

2004-11-23T19:42:00.000-05:00

“Diplomacy and Darfur” - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55673-2004Nov16.html

Darfur, which is located in Sudan, has been undergoing a seriou problems in the last one and a half years. This problem is genocide. Many countries and the UN have known of what is happening, yet it still continues, “Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan -- have journeyed to Sudan to demand an end to the killing; still the genocide continues.” So far, the only steps taken to stop the genocide have been sanctions places on Sudan by other countries. However, Sudan continues what it is doing, “The first phony concession came in April. Sudan's government signed on to a cease-fire, promising to ‘refrain from any act of violence or any other abuse on civilian populations.’ Since then the government has participated in unprovoked assaults on villages, murdering men, raping women and tossing children into flames that consume their huts.” This may be somewhat exaggerated, but any type of killing is wrong.
This issue should not be up to one country to try to fix, but something that the UN needs to work on and quickly. This does not have to do with economics. The genocide needs to be stopped because thousands of people are being killed, displaced and are starving. Another war is not wanted, however maybe other methods to solving this problem exist. Tighter sanctions could be imposed and all assets connected to the government supporting the genocide could be frozen by UN countries. This Washington Post editorial’s, “Diplomacy and Darfur”, author is in favor of stopping the genocide even through the use of force, “But Darfur's crisis is so awful that the usual balancing of national priorities is immoral. Some 300,000 people may have died in Darfur so far, and the dying is not yet finished.” According to the editorial, “Gen. Romeo Dallaire, the U.N. commander in Rwanda during the genocide a decade ago, has suggested that a force of 44,000 is needed. Charles R. Snyder, the senior State Department official on Sudan, has estimated that securing Darfur would take 60 to 70 battalions.” This is a lot of force and it would be best if it did not have to come to that, but something stricter in the meantime should be imposed.

Blog #14 - Rob Piatkowski

2004-11-23T16:14:00.000-05:00

“Coup in Kiev” - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6032-2004Nov22.html

Ukraine is currently having difficulties in their national election, and it is important for the United States, along with other countries, to help. According to the editorial “Coup in Kiev” in The Washington Post, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych lost the election, according to exit polls, by 43% to 54%. Viktor Yushchenko, the should be winner, is in favor of democracy while the Prime Minister is close to a dictatorship, who, “backed by a neo-imperial Russia, would rule this large European nation through force and fraud.” Many organizations and countries from around the world have reported the fraud in the election, including “Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), who traveled to Kiev to observe the elections with the endorsement of President Bush” and other United States officials. Many Ukrainians are upset over this and tens of thousands of citizens demonstrated their opinion in Kiev.
To add to this, it seems as Russia is a key player in promoting the fraud and not wanted a democracy to exist there. Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, donated hundreds of millions of dollars to Prime Minister Viktor’s campaign and “brazenly issued a statement congratulating Mr. Yanukovych, even though Ukraine's election commission had not finished counting the vote or declared an official result.” What can be gathered from this is that Putin is not in favor of democracy and it seems as if he is cutting down democracy in his own country as well. The United States, along with other countries needs to help out the Ukrainians because they do not want a dictatorship or restrictive form of government and a US backing, without force, would be beneficial. What can be done is cutting off funds, stopping anything to do with Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych and those supporting him, while at the same time supporting those for Viktor Yushchenko with aid and support.

Blog #13 - Rob Piatkowski

2004-11-20T17:02:00.000-05:00

“Due Process on Dams”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50184-2004Nov14.html

Hydroelectric power is a renewable energy source that is used throughout the United States, with many plants in the West. The dams built to use water for this power source, however, are not always greeted warmly. When a dam is built, it completely alters the river it is built in. Behind the dam the land is flooded and valleys and canyons, among other things, can be completely covered in water. Downstream from the dam, the amount of water flowing may be decreased and silt will no longer be carried in the water to create beaches and sandbars. Fish can also be trapped behind the damn and not be able to go downstream, or they may not be able to go upstream from the other side.
Dams are important though, for they provide recreational use for boating and fishing, a source of drinking water in arid areas, and clean energy. All of these are important financially and can benefit people living nearby. However, the Interior Department, as “In the next 15 years, licenses for more than half the country's privately owned dams will come up for renewal” has a proposal to allow companies that own dams to be able to work their way around existing environmental and other laws. “Under Interior's proposed regulation, hydropower companies would have the exclusive right to appeal to the department's political appointees to try to change or loosen conditions imposed by more junior officials. Others affected by the license renewal -- states, Indian tribes, anglers, environmental groups -- could respond to the power company's arguments, but they wouldn't have any parallel right to this interim appeal.” This would be done as dam licenses come up for renewal. This department is considering letting others be able to appeal, but as of now it is only the companies who can. It would only be fair to have all sides be able to input their opinion’s and file appeals with equal amount of potential impact. Otherwise, it seems as if the Interior Department would be favoring and giving benefits to the companies while not considering public opinion or current laws. If laws are formed, but they can possibly be appealed by a company, the law is pointless and will not have the impact that it originally was intended to have.

Blog #10 - Bumjoon Kim

2004-11-20T15:00:00.000-05:00

The journey with George

The journey with George is a documentary film about Bush’s 2000 bid for President of the U.S. Producer of the film is daughter of Democratic Congressperson Nancy Pelosi, but this is not that typical blame on other side film. It describes personal side of Bush and the relationship between reporters and politics. I believe Republicans won’t hate this film, because I as a Democratic Party supporter get a lot of positive impressions about the President Bush. Even before I watched this film, I felt Kerry is more professional and reliable, and Bush is unskillful but more human-like. I agree Kerry is not a family value breaker. However, Bush seemed little bit lack of professional skill, compared to Senator Kerry, but that somehow reminds he is a bit more careful about personal value. I think that kind of thoughts came from the stereotype of professionally successful man lacks some family value time. This film deals with Bush’s life other than his speech, where he sometimes shows his lack of professional skill, and his humorous jokes. I didn’t watch Kerry’s or other candidate’s documentary film, so I don’t know what they do with their reporters. They might do same as or better than what the President Bush did in this film, but what I saw in this film definitely breaks my stereotype of politics. It is true that they always have to deal with voters, and that should be their basic skill. But my stereotype about politics was more professional and impersonal. Reporters should get some information about candidates, but they can’t get anything if their interviewee is mad at them. Sometimes reporters can’t report some facts that make interviewee angry. However, only praising report can’t satisfy the newspaper readers. From this film, I learned what we see in the newspapers is not all, and how hard for reporters to work.

Comparing picking a canidate

2004-11-19T15:43:00.000-05:00

The canidates in the election this path month were choosin on which way this country is goin, but many poeple though of it as a PC purchase. Where as it will be gone in 4 years and won't make that big of a difference in the whole scheme of things. This election was vital to deciding what direction the country was headed. The election was if we wanted ideals of Philidelphia 1776 or of Paris 2004. THis was stated in the editorial and seemed very true. Will people wan't to have a situation where the government takes care of everyones needs or will we go back to the core beliefs of hard work and diligence of our Founding Fathers. It seems that many of the people on the Left think that America can support all the need of the people through government and not suffer enormously in the economics and output of our country. The constant wan't to be like Canada and Europe is destroying this country and bringing the entire world economy down as our country gets more socialist. Our ideas of capitalism are flying out the window as Bruce gathers mindless people to the polls, and Puff Daddy claim "vote or die" an obvious liber agenda as it promotes inter city kids too go vote in a mindless fashion being herded into the polls. The more America goes in the socialist path the more easily it will be for the rest of the world to gain power on us. With our government becoming less willing to defend personal freedoms it seems we are headed on a dark direction as the path to socialism seems more and more evident. A fact that a socialist such as Kerry can gain 50% of the votes in the American Governments most powerful position is very frightning. Hopefully America will think do they want a society of Paris 2004 or one of America in the 19 and early 20th century.

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/wsamuel_20041119.html

Blog#13-Rice: International Superstar or George Bush Clone!-Chris Clarke

2004-11-17T19:56:00.000-05:00

After the news of Condoleezza Rice being nominated to replace Collin Powell as Secretary of State, the bloggers and editorialists have been in a writing frenzy. Some, mostly the right are happy with the choice, while many of the left are worried. However, in the internet world, articles from the left seem much more abundant, such as The Friends of George from The New York Times. While I must say that I am very sad to see Collin Powell leave office, most of us knew it was inevitable. The choice of Condoleezza Rice is not exactly shocking, but I can understand the complaints flowing in from the liberals. The fear is that Rice is much too similar to Bush and will only serve to fuel his decisions and ideologies. The main example is that of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which proved “false”. While I do not share these feelings I can honestly understand where they are coming from. Collin Powell got along with the president rather fine, but was known to have issues with Donald Rumsfeld, another top ranking official in the Bush Cabinet. I think differences of opinion are a good thing to have, and hopefully Rice will be as outspoken as she has in the past rather than to agree with whatever Bush wants. One of the best points the article brings up is the fact that Rice has great opportunities this term. With the death Arafat comes the chance to try once more to generate peace in the Middle East. If this can be done it would go a long way, and most would probably be able to forgive the President for the blunders in the Middle East of the first tem. So there you have it, Rice has the chance to either become a international hero, or the next target of Moveon.org. You never know, if things go well http://www.rice2008.com/ might become a reality.

Reforming The Election System

2004-11-16T18:18:00.000-05:00

Many people have gotten off the reform the election bandwagon after the unexpectedly large margin that the President won by. The outgoing cry for election reform has been almost silenced since the election on November 2, and the people protesting seem to be very off base. They cry that the eleciton was rigged and that it is all just a conspiricay theory in wake of the Republican victory. The poeple that make the outragous claims discredit any rational thoughts that people have, and only damage their reform movements. Electronic ballots do not feel quite as safe as punch ballets, but after the 2000 election it seems that those are not even sure. The punch ballets had great problems in Florida as a result of all the lawyers and stupid people out there protesting the election. In my opinion it was the debocal in the 2000 election that showed our weekness to the Middle East. It gave them that hole and oppertunity to strike America where it hurt the most, in our own country. The election in 2004 was too smoth and too much of an outright victory for the protesters to delay the inaugeration of this president. The last Presidency was off to a slow start as Bush was unable to gather the cabinet as he was not 'officially'; declared President. Although Gore himself could not have claimed that he had a chance to actually reclaim the Presidency. The election process is not perfect, but it works, and there is no reason to replace the entire system because of hanging chads and bitchy protesters.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=703&e=4&u=/ap/20041116/ap_on_re_us/election_reform_next_steps

Blog #12 - The Slow Cabinet Process - Chris Clarke

2004-11-16T14:32:00.000-05:00

This last week has shown that Bush will have many openings on the cabinet and sub-cabinet level, leaving many Americans to wonder how long it will take to be fully staffed once again. Paul Light of The New York Times writes the editorial Late for Their Appointments to show the read tape the Bush Administration must go through to have all these positions filled. The process is long because of the massive amounts of paperwork involved, but there is much more to it. The rules for cabinet appointment have not changed which is causing a bottleneck in the executive branch. Each term the number of people under the president continually grows and grows. This causes for more spots to be filled and more time to take. It’s a bottleneck because only so many applications can be processed at once, which causes a longer waiting period. While there have been a few complaints ever 4 or so years, very little has been done to solve the problem. The only thing the president can do is try to work as best as he can with congress. The problem could be a lot easier if we updated these rustic appointment policies. This is one of the few parts of our government that continues to grow, but no advances are made. A simple fix would be to cut down on the paperwork portion, allowing for a quicker process time. They could also consider trying to have a better way of processing the applications, or more people processing them to quicken the process. However most of these things will probably not happen, at least for the next few years. It is very important to have a full cabinet, especially during times of war. Unfortunately Bush’s only hope is to work well with congress and hope for the best.

Link - Chris Clarke

2004-11-16T14:09:00.000-05:00

The Democrats' Self-Created Hell

Link - Vaibhav Shah

2004-11-16T14:04:00.000-05:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6401634/site/newsweek/

Link - Paul Wach

2004-11-16T13:02:00.000-05:00

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-11-16-rice_x.htm

Link - bumjoon kim

2004-11-16T11:49:00.000-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/16/politics/16cabinet.html?8bl

Link - Rob Piatkowski

2004-11-15T20:59:00.000-05:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48191-2004Nov13.html

Link - Dan Grigoras

2004-11-15T16:25:00.000-05:00

http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6818364

Blog #11 - A Liberals Nightmare - Chris Clarke

2004-11-15T01:05:00.000-05:00

One of the most powerful abilities of the president is the right to appoint Supreme Court justices. This ability becomes even more powerful when one part holds the presidency as well as the congress. On the news you will hear arguments from the right and the left about what each side looks for in choosing these judges, which probably was the source of motivation for Michael Kinsley to write “The Right's Kind of Activism”. The editorial spends most of its attacking the Rights rubric for choosing the right judge. It is no secret that Republicans don’t mind divided government and judicial restraint, but the author seems to have a problem with the later. Kinsley argue that the right loathes judicial activism except on the issue of abortion.
But what is the problem here? It is the right of the president to choose who he wants for judges. If Kerry were to choose judges, he would choose who he wants, it is their choice. It is also nothing new that the right is pro-life, so it is obvious that they want judges with the same values. This editorial seems to show no real problem, and since there is no problem, it is hard to offer up any real solution or strong examples. The author only seems to succeed in whining about the fact that Republicans will be able to pick the judges they want for the next four years.

Blog #10 - Voting Flaws - Chris Clarke

2004-11-14T20:08:00.000-05:00

If bloggers and editorialists are not currently writing about why John Kerry lost or why the Electoral College is bad, then they are probably talking about all the inaccuracies in this years voting. One such example is “About Those Election Results” published by the Washington Post. This article seems more worried about the development of conspiracy theories than the actual correction of our voting process. The tabulating errors that are cited the most are the ones that occurred in Ohio and Florida. In one Ohio County of 800 voters 4,000 votes for Bush were recorded. In Florida, it is said that machines may have switched who the person voted for. These are both very strong examples of flaws in our voting process and come up in many of these editorials. However this one seem concerned that since voting software isn’t open source, and some precincts are not open to the public, it may cause for theories to be developed about why the things are happening. The editorial asks for everything in the voting realm to be open to the public, something I find a bad idea. Many things in our government is able to occur in private without much question, the only difference is that these things operate successfully, unlike all of our voting precincts. I feel that if we want to make voting easier and more reliable in the future we need to perfect it instead of opening all of the flaws to the society. While this article has strong examples and good reasons, I think its solution to the flawed system is also somewhat flawed.

Blog #13 - Dan Grigoras

2004-11-14T18:47:00.000-05:00

Mohammad’s article “Secretary of State Powell Quits Bush Cabinet” deals with the recent voluntary withdrawal of power by Secretary of State Colin Powel that took place on Monday, November 15, 2004. According to the article, Powell is the highest ranking official to quit since President Bush’s reelection. He leaves along with 4 other Cabinet resignations. In saying this, the author is attempting to insinuate that Collin’s departure is directly related to President Bush’s reelection, and that Powel solely left to avoid spending another four years with Bush. Along with Collin Powel, the White House also announced the resignations of Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and Education Secretary Rod Paige. Last week Attorney General John Ashcroft and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans quit. According to the article “Powell was the most popular Cabinet member among Americans and resisted calls in the mid-1990s to run for president.” Judging by the syntax of the author’s argument, the author is attempting to label Powel as a good politician who responded well to the people, but not our President now and to be, George Bush. Powell’s resignation comes at a time where the US plans to defeat an uneasiness created by Iraq, Iran, and North Korea developing nuclear weapons. Powell’s moderate departure could deepen the right-wing influence of President Bush. Powell stated that he plans to finish out his term, or until they find a replacement. Hopefully his replacement will do an equally impressive job with foreign relations.

Dems and GOP merge?

2004-11-14T15:00:00.000-05:00

The article presented that the parties are becoming more and more socialist. The media and many American's are refering to the President as a conservitive, although he campaigned on many of the liberal ideas of the Democratic party. The two parties are linked and as the media presents the American public as more liberal then they actually are the politcians begin to propose more and more socialit ideas in our Capitol. The article sugested that the next 4 years willhow the next election will be campaigned. It sugested that if the President became more liberal over his next term the next Republican canidate could be more liberal and even a Pro-choice canidate. This is totally against the conservative ideas of the American public. The idea of a third party emergine from the socialit agenda of American politics. The United States public must be aware of the turn our society has taken. The public has gone more and more liberal leaving the United SWtates in crisis. Out crusade for freedom might have to be on the home front. A terrible surprise that is much worse then the threat of terroism. The ideeal situation is a Republican President that portrayss his ideas of presonal resposibility rather than government taking care of everyone in America. The national debt has caused enourmous problems.

Blog #12 - Dan Grigoras

2004-11-11T20:20:00.000-05:00

In Journeys with George, Alexandra Pelosi’s spends a year with President George W. Bush prior to him winning the election in 2000. Through the course of the documentary, Pelosi’s relationship with George reveal certain qualities of our President and how he acts on the camera compared to off the camera. Contrary to political conferences like those that appear on national television which make it seem politicians only act cunning because they know they’re being viewed on televisions around the country, the documentary led me to believe some politicians, or at least George W. Bush doesn’t share these same aspects. In the documentary, Bush would act formal during meets and political gatherings by speaking confidently, maintaining a positive outlook, always shaking as many hands as possible, but when they go behind the scenes (but keep filming) Bush demonstrates how he’s just a regular guy prone to mistakes like everyone else. This is also presented during Bush’s first presidency where he relies on his simple man demeanor during debates and conferences. Although Pelosi votes for Bill Bradley in the primary despite Bush’s efforts to persuade her, she still seems like a rather objective journalist. The film accurately does nothing but play excerpts with commentary from Pelosi regarding what it’s like to go around with Bush for a year. The documentary illustrates the “bad side” of Bush and the “not so bad side”. This could be why so many Republicans like it.

Arafat's Death the End of an Era

2004-11-11T14:28:00.000-05:00

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41401

This article actually wrote a proper summery of Arafat's death. The article told of Aratfat's terrorist activities and reminded everyone how the leader gained his power. Without all his actions on Israel and the United States he would have recieved no respect or power for the PLO. Many Europeans and Muslim countries are praising the terrorist. Even some American journalist have praised the man in his death. It is embarrising that this man ir presented to the American public by the media as a 'Gradfather Figure' of sorts. The man was seen as hero and that is the opposite case. The world will hopefully realize that his actions destroyed much more then they ever created. People live in fear because of the new terrorism Arafat created. The Arafat problem created a generation that worships suicide bombers, and cheer when Israelies are killed. The man is the reason of September 11, yet all the people in the United States worships his 'resolve' in the Middle East. The man has created fear in Isreal, the United States ally, and the United States has praised the man as he goes to the grave. It should be a holiday and celebrated in the streets that such an evil man has finally left this world. Everything is relevent, every terrorist action is not a resul;t of Arafat, but the man had created the problem and the world of terroism expanded a great deal as a result of Arafat.

Blog #12 - Rob Piatkowski

2004-11-10T01:42:00.000-05:00

“A New Start on Courts”

This editorial in The Washington Post is about President Bush’s choices to be made in appointing judges to the Supreme Court. Though the author seems to be Democratic, or at least did not want President Bush reelected, what is written in the article is a great balance of both sides and does not criticize one side over the other. The Supreme Court has a lot of power and each judge can be on it for as long as they would like to be, which makes picking a new judge extremely important. With 55 republicans joining the Senate, President Bush will have a lot of Congressional backing behind him. This does not mean that he should pick someone who would cause trouble for the Democratic Party and who is very conservative. The author of the editorial, with whom I agree, thinks that Bush should pick someone that is favorable to both parties and who fits in with President Bush’s beliefs. According to this editorial, “Bush has said consistently through two campaigns that he would nominate judges who would strictly interpret the Constitution and who would not legislate from the bench.” If that type of judge was appointed to the Supreme Court, it would be a very good thing since the Supreme Court’s job is to make sure that laws are constitutional, not what a specific party does or does not want.
The author also says that, “Democratic senators and liberal interest groups need to accept that, having won the election, Mr. Bush is entitled to name men and women he believes will adhere to his stated judicial philosophy. But as Mr. Bush's history with nominations has shown, not every such person is offensive to Democrats.” This is a positive thing about Bush and something that the author probably hopes will continue. One thing in the editorial that caught my attention was this, “There is talk of changing Senate rules so that a minority could no longer engage in filibusters to block judicial nominations, the one point of leverage that Democrats in the Senate retain.” I do not think filibusters are a good tool to use at all, mainly because no real solution seems likely to come from it. Instead of discussing the problem and working out a deal, one side will just waste that time until the time is up. However, I do not think that the minority in the Senate should not be able to use filibusters to block judicial nominations, but instead they should either remain for both parties, or be taken away from both sides and replaced with a new method, at least in dealing with judicial nominations.

Blog #11 - Rob Piatkowski

2004-11-10T01:40:00.000-05:00

“Arctic Thaw”

This editorial in The Washington Post is about the current issue of global warming and green house gases effects on this, which the author holds as one of the most important environmental problems in the new century. The author discusses both sides of the argument and tries to build a reputable ethos. This is done by mentioning that the information is from a four year study by the Arctic Council. This council is made up of scientists from eight countries, including the United States. The author of the editorial, along with the scientists, did not offer any specific proposals, but just listed facts and things that could likely occur.
The author does think that a problem is occurring and that the United States needs to take an active role in controlling the problem. This is made evident when the author says, “Some participants have accused the Bush administration of resisting a mild endorsement of the report and of rejecting even vague language suggesting that greenhouse gas reduction might be part of the solution. Given the thorough nature of this report, and given that the election is now over, that would be inexcusable.” The author would like to see decisions made on this issue that are based on science and not as much around politics.
The author makes effective statements in this editorial. Very little is opinion and some of the statistics grab the reader’s attention, such as, “If the trend continues, about half of the Arctic sea ice is projected to melt by the end of this century.” The language used by the author remained casual and informative until the last paragraph, were the author’s feelings are clearly stated, but they are not over exaggerated or uncontrolled.

Blog # 6 - Vaibhav Shah

2004-11-09T01:56:00.000-05:00

Jonathan Freedland in his article, “Still no votes in Leipzig”, questions the totality of the US elections from the view of an international citizen. With strong appeals to the reader’s logos and stating several examples, he proves how profound is the effect of the actions of “the world’s sole superpower” on every country in the world. Freedland goes on to propose a solution: that the rest of the world should have a say in the elections since it is directly or indirectly gravely affected by its winner, the next president of the United States of America. The writer calls this idea American in itself, by the fact that the 1776 declaration states that authority is rightful only where it receives the approval of the governed. The author supports most of his claims by drawing the reader’s attention to America’s pre-emptive war policy and the war on terror. He is successful in pointing out that unlike earlier when allies could sway America’s decisions, they no longer have a say, being on the outside. The article is aimed for an international audience, which feels alienated from the presidential elections, despite its indirect connection with it. Freedland backs his claims by sound reasoning and statistics and seems to be unbiased despite him saying that “the world is solid Kerry territory” as he goes to suggest that that international support Kerry receives signifies him more as a “limp-wristed foreigner” as often hinted by the Republican party.

Blog # 5 - Vaibhav Shah

2004-11-09T01:55:00.000-05:00

In “Is Voting Worth the Trouble”, Jim Holt addresses the controversial topic of how significant is each vote in the presidential elections. Debating for both sides, the author talks about how it’s one’s “civic obligation” to vote but yet how infinitesimal is the chance of one vote swinging the elections. He goes on to theorize the participation of more than half of the electorate in the elections, allocating it to the need to express oneself or the experience of voting. Holt also debates over the Electoral College system, arguing on one side its partiality to less populous states in its generosity of representation per capita and on the other the power it presents to large states because of the winner-take-all rule. The author goes on to offer a solution to swinging the election – drawing votes away from the opposing candidate by running for president from a third-party or getting appointed to the Supreme Court. Though the solution offered to the question proposed by the author might not seem practical to the average American, it indicates to him or her that there really is no alternative. Through this, the author might be signifying his loss of belief in democracy today. Holt thus effectively reasons, with strong appeals to our logos, why “to vote out of duty, not self interest.” Expressed with an unbiased view, the article addresses a large audience, irrespective of its political affiliation, informing it how meaningful, or meaningless, their vote will be in the presidential election.

Blog #11 - Dan Grigoras

2004-11-08T23:13:00.000-05:00

Along with leaving 49% of the United States to dread the next four years, the reelection of George W. Bush helped to boost Bush’s psyche and self esteem according to “President Feels Emboldened, Not Accidental, After Victory” by Elisabeth Bumiller. According to the article, President Bush was unsure of his right to be the American President for 2000-2004 because he was worried his election was directly related to his father’s presidency before him, and to random errors in ballot counting. After his reelection, Mr. Bush is reveling that in winning the popular vote he feels that he can no longer be considered a one-term accident of history. The reelection definitely boosted Bush’s confidence about himself and removed any uncertainty he had about his role in the presidency. According to the article, “Mr. Bush's conservative supporters continue to believe that he will emerge as the political heir of Ronald Reagan, determined to use his presidency to usher in a Republican ascendancy.” To compare Bush’s upcoming presidency to Reagan’s presidency of economic growth and stability is a rather hasty generalization. In the article, Bush promised to decrease the national deficit and overhaul Social Security without the money in the Treasury to do it. If Bush really can do all he promises in his upcoming presidency and still maintain political serenity with the Middle East and Asia, he deserves to be acclaimed a successor to Reagan. Only his upcoming presidency can determine his right to rule.

Blog #9 - Bumjoon Kim

2004-11-08T16:57:00.000-05:00

Everyone recognize the seriousness of outsourcing jobs, and the problem is getting worse and worse. It means there are many reasons for our government to solve it. This article describes it as ‘the challenge confronting the president is how to achieve Clinton’s economy and Eisenhower’s job growth while avoiding Carter’s inflation, Nixon’s price controls and Reagan’s deficit.’ Cutting expense of business corporations is natural reaction, and cheaper labors are the easiest way of achieving that goal for companies. Companies are globalized and they can outsource jobs easily. Most bills to prevent outsourcing are focused on incentives for companies not outsourcing, and as stated in the article, it does not helpful a lot in long-run. I like the concept of solving the problem by providing enough skill for labors and setting higher minimum wage to keep the jobs in the U.S. As Kerry stated, Bush administration lost jobs and that happens very rarely through the history. In order to solve the outsourcing jobs problem, I think the government should try both which is giving incentives for companies to alleviate the short-term problems and making programs to educate labors sufficiently. When we are facing such a problem like this, the one simple solution can’t solve the problem. What the problem is affecting people’s life significantly, and when it adheres long-run, it knocks the entire business down. To solve this type of problems, we have to use complex solution that deals with both short term alleviation and long term solution. This article successfully pointed out current solution’s short coming, but the suggested solution is too general that they people suffering right now will not be regarded.

Source:
Voters, Their Minds Made Up, Say bin Laden Changes Nothing
By KIRK JOHNSON
Published: October 31, 2004 (New York Times)

Why They Lost

2004-11-05T12:58:00.000-05:00

Andrei Cherny, a former policy advisor for John Kerry has written an interesting little article titled “Why We Lost”. Cherny has worked with both Gore and Kerry, and is obviously upset to see either of them in the white house. However, he seems to know the cause of both candidates’ losses, the party’s platform. And who can argue with him? Many times throughout this years campaign timeline the party was criticized for not having a clear and concise plan for America. While they did have some plans, they never seem to truly have it as mapped out as the Republican Party. Kerry was able to give somewhat of a plan for the war in Iraq and terrorism, but few can remember what was said on important economic plans for the country and the world. Cherny hardly gives a solution to the problem except that facing the problem is long overdue and that questions the party faces need to start being answered. I would have to agree with most of what Cherny’s editorial has to say. I believe the Democratic Party does have a specific plan for America, but I feel that they do a fairly inefficient job at conveying their ideas to America, something they must work on if they have hopes of winning the next election in 2008.

Blog #10 - Dan Grigoras

2004-11-04T20:11:00.000-05:00

With the election finally over and Bush in office for the next four years, some people are starting to wonder what’s at the top of Bush’s list of things to do for his presidency. In the Article “Terrorism, Iraq and Economy Are at Top of His Agenda” Adam Nagourney explains Bush’s plans and prepositions for the next four years. For most of his victory speech Bush rather generally talked about his plan, but he did make a lot of promises to the American people. Bush and other Republican leaders are promising to renew efforts to pass bills that Democrats had blocked, like one permitting drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and another placing caps on awards in liability lawsuits. Bush’s plans will have a serious effect on the people of the United States. Perhaps there was a pretty good reason the Democrats had block the oil drilling in the Arctic. Drilling in the Arctic could potentially kill endangered species only existent in that area of the world. If we destroy their habitat they will be lost forever and there would be no way to recreate them. Bush mentioned that he was looking to stabilize the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq to allow American soldiers to return home. We’ve been there too long already. We should’ve been out a long time ago. After four years, we’re deeper into Iraq than ever before. Hopefully Bush will stay true to his word and began to slowly move out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The next few years can determine our nation’s foreign relations for the next few decades.

Kerry's godfather a pothead/ molester

2004-10-31T21:00:00.000-05:00

John Kerry has had Peter Yarrow as his godfather of his daughter and on the campaign trail much of the time. Peter Yarrow was famous for his song "puff the Magic Dragon." Kerry's good friend was charged with molestation of a 13-year-old girl in the 70's, but was pardoned by Carter. Peter's song was not about marijuana, but during the song, Kerry laughed about it and held a mock joint up to his lips. The man was campaigning for many Democrats this year as him and Kerry has been friends for a long time. A senator in the state of Texas cancelled his appearance at a rally with the folk singer. It is presidential to go around talking about smoking bud and having a molester on the campaign trail. This election seems to be about the morals of the American society. Kerry has far too liberal views on such things as pot and child abuse. Views and friendships with those types of people stain the presidential wannabe. This election is not going to be close as Midwest and southern voters realize his fallacies and elect Bush on a landslide.

I personally think this has nothing to do with the election outcome and is just a funny fact that the presidential candidate has such a bombshell on tour with him. This man does not look like he would help Sen. Kerry, and he only seems to be hurting his chances. I have seen this story several times and it does not seem to help the campaign to have a pot smoker/ molester on tour with them. His song is obviously about Marijuana, and that looks bad to the rest of America. I think this is a bad move on the Kerry campaign to keep him on board.

Blog #9 - Dan Grigoraas

2004-10-31T17:13:00.000-05:00

The presidential election of 2004 will no doubt have a major impact on the people of the United States, but has the potential to influence the people and governments around the world. In the Canadian article “Bush backers spin bin Laden tape in his favour” one Canadian news author expresses how he believes the Republican Party is spinning the newly released Bin Laden tape in their favor. The new Bin Laden tape couldn’t have been “discovered” at a more convenient time for the republicans. The information on the tape shows that Bin Laden is still alive and still at large encouraging his followers to continue their terrorizing ways and possibly recreate the 9/11 tragedy. The Republican Party is using the tape to say that the American people still need a political leader who is willing to stay in Iraq and fight for America. Because Bush and the Republican Party in general typically favor staying in Iraq, the presidential battle has conventionally fallen in favor for Bush. The article points out that in the eyes of American voters, security is one of the U.S. president's strengths. Bush's approval ratings soared after the September 11th attacks, and he has always polled well on his handling of the war on terrorism. Critiques believe the video will lean the moderate unsure voters toward Bush because voters seem to feel Bush has more experience in protecting the U.S. from terrorism. Only the upcoming election will decide the peoples’ merit of the video and the war.

Kerry's War

2004-10-30T15:04:00.000-05:00

I agree with many of Chris’s concerns about Kerry’s War plans. If he does take over there will be a change in policy, but that is nothing America cannot handle. It is the natural cycle of the Presidency. War time switches have been difficult as seen in Vietnam, but this one will be completely different. If Kerry were to pull out, because he could not get the proper coalition the terrorist will have won. This would be disastrous, and it will be very difficult to convince the French and Germans to join out ‘crusade’ with the campaign rhetoric of ‘wrong war.’ It will again be America vs. Iraq as it has been for the past-coupled months. The American goal is to help to establish a Democracy that will help to stabilize the Middle East and no longer harbor any terrorist that are a threat to Israel, Europe, and the Americas. Chris stated many of the concerns of the American public, and I have many of the same concerns. That is the reason we invest so much of our tax dollars in a powerful military. The military is vital to every American’s safety. It is not the Orange Alerts on the terrorist threat barometer, but taking care of the problems overseas. When terrorist know that we will react they will be very, very reluctant to take any actions on us. We need to remain a superpower to prevent terrorist actions against us. The World Market needs us to be in charge for American companies and interest to foster overseas. The safer we are the better our economy will be, and the higher our stander of living will rise. With the development of Nuclear powers, it becomes more and more vital to protect them from ever being used again. It is a powerful technology and it needs to be seen as an important issue. We all know that Saddam had the nuclear power, and was not cooperating with the inspectors. If he had nothing to hide, he would have been open to the inspectors to do their job. I am confident we will find the weapons he had will be found and the was will have even more vindication.

What if it is Kerry's War?

2004-10-28T22:25:00.000-05:00

As a republican I try not to think about Kerry winning the presidency, but after reading this article it makes me wonder if people are planning the switch over if he does prevail. In the last election Bush really didn’t have much to take over, except of a small economic slump left by Clinton. However, in Kerry’s case, he has himself a rather large war with Iraq, a war he has promised to make better. No longer will it be Bush’s war, but now Kerry’s war, a chance for him to show that he is as good of a leader as he says he can be. Besides that though, how is Kerry going to be able to take over as chief commander with as little error and delay as possible. Another question is how long is America going to give Kerry to turn things around? It is unfair to give him only a week, but what time frame is adequate for such a proverbial turnaround? There are so many logistical issues such as working with the war generals as well as communicating with other countries leaders for assistance. Since the war being a major part of his campaign and a big promise of his to make better, many eyes will be on him, which could prove to be a great or horrible thing for him and the Democratic Party as a whole. Hopefully all of that Vietnam experience Kerry claims to of have will serve him well if it becomes Kerry’s war.

Why Truman Defeats Dewey - and Bush Beats Kerry?

2004-10-26T22:20:00.000-05:00

The article was comparison the elections. The article compared the personalities of Kerry and Dewey, and the similarities were all most eerie. It then went on to compare the Bush and Truman presidencies and the times they were in. The times were very similar to each other, the Cold War and the War on Terrorism. Then it compared the media aspect of the entire campaigns. It showed that the media was clearly against the incumbent, yet most Americans were genially behind the President. That is very similar to the way Bush has support across the South and West. The Northeast is clearly Democratic and seemed to have lost touch with the rest of the country, similar to the South in tremens day (when they voted for Strom Thurman). In the article, it stated that Massachusetts voted Democratic with a 22-point margin, while the largest republican win was 11 points in Texas. This shows that the Northeast has clearly lost touch and has nearly an opposite ideology from the rest of America. The article predicted that the incumbent would get his reelection bid. This would be because he carried the south and west, as it has the most electorate. Kerry is expected to win the Northeast and part of the west, while Bush must carry his west ands south in order to win reelection. The similarities are very crazy, but we will have to wait until that fateful day in November decides the Presidency and direction of our country.

http://remotefarm.techcentralstation.com/102604B.html

The Double Standard of the Iraqi War

2004-10-24T14:58:00.000-05:00

http://www.gcc.edu/news/faculty/editorials/kengor_10_19_04_unilateralstrike.htm

The Democratic Party acted in almost the same manor that W has done in 2004. Clinton with little, well actually no foreign experience he bombed Baghdad to counter Saddams plot to kill Bush Sr... The Iraqi government had plans to kill the president, the FBI and CIA knew about it, so we retaliated without UN approval. Democrats and Republicans supported the President and many Americans were not concerned about our lack of multinational support. This was almost the complete opposite of the way the Democratic Party reacted to our new war. With 3000 more lives lost, the left protested the war to no end in order to gain political support. The war was protested and fought against almost everyday of its existence, while the media is up in arms to end this conflict as every death is reported in an almost 'unjust cause' way. In order to maintain our freedom we must protect it, and sometimes we need force in order to keep other countries in line. If we want to be the worlds leaders we have to show we are not afraid to enforce our policies, without the respect of foreign leaders we will never be able to lead the world. I believe that people need to understand that sacrifice is sometimes necessary. The world is going to be a safer place after we have a victory in the Middle East and if John Kerry is not elected.

Getting to know Kerry

2004-10-21T13:24:00.000-05:00

In "Bush, Kerry argue over leadership," the author attempts to describe Kerry the man. He begins with a picture of Kerry holding a shot gun and waving at the camera. This is very awkward since Kerry is claiming he is for gun control. Something else in the picture should also bug those who see it, the bird Kerry supposed shot is being carried by the man behind him. When Kerry was asked about this he replied, "I'm too lazy." What? It would seem that he would have thought of some crafty excuse, but instead he replies calling himself lazy. I am a hunter, and I carry my load home. I bet he did not clean the bird either. No! No! He is too good for that dirty work. There is a saying that goes like this, "You kill it, you clean it." Kerry obviously only likes the "fun" part. I must also analyze the fact that the article tends to bring the bad out in Kerry; the author is apparently a Bush supporter. To be fair to Kerry, the author talks of a picture where Kerry is aiming his gun with his finger on the trigger, but his eyes are in another direction. This is a "no, no," but honestly something could have distracted him at the last second.

"Real Americans aren't interested in your pansy-ass, tea-sipping opinions."

2004-10-21T12:28:00.000-05:00

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/21/ngraun21.xml

This article was about the British influence on our election. The Guardian, one of Britain’s largest newspapers sent letters to voters in Ohio to get them to kick out Bush and vote for Kerry. The letters caused uproar in the Ohio town, getting all sorts of negative reactions. It created a buzz and a bad one for the Democrats. The letters helped many undecided voters to "vote-American," quoted by a voter in Clarke County. The Guardian is very adamant about getting Bush out of office with many celebrities and journalist constantly writhing anti-Bush editorials. I believe this is also the same paper that we discussed in class that proposed that the entire world should vote in the United States elections. Many undecided voters received the letters, and it got to many partisan people as well. The reaction of the Republican Party in the area was much more positive than that of the Democratic Party. This makes since, if some other clown from another country tried to get me to vote for Kerry, I would be very upset. This is an American election, and although he is the most powerful man in the world, the other countries should not have any weight in our election. The election should be whets best for America and its foreign interest (American companies abroad) rather than the interest of jealous European countries. The direction of the United States has gone from being that of capitalism and freedom to that of what do the French (or any European country) think of what we are doing. When has France ever helped us out, we should not give a damn what they think or what they want. This is America and let us keeps it American.

Blog #8 - Dan Grigoras

2004-10-20T22:25:00.000-05:00

In “Imagining America if George Bush Chose the Supreme Court” Adam Cohen brings up some interesting extremities regarding what might happen if George Bush could choose our Supreme Court justices. The entire first paragraph pretty much says it all about the author’s political standpoint. “Abortion might be a crime in most states. Gay people could be thrown in prison for having sex in their homes. States might be free to become mini-theocracies, endorsing Christianity and using tax money to help spread the gospel. The Constitution might no longer protect inmates from being brutalized by prison guards. Family and medical leave and environmental protections could disappear.” This paragraph conveys the author to be rather extremist and somewhat unrealistic which brings to question his credentials. The author goes on to argue the classic case of Roe v. Wade would be immediately overturned if Bush chose Supreme Court justices. Roe v Wade is the Supreme Court case that incorporates the right to privacy which modern government uses to support the right to an abortion. This implies that Bush does not support a citizen’s right to privacy and is against the Bill of Rights. Perhaps there’s a pretty good reason the Supreme Court justices and Supreme Court officials are suppose to be non partisan. Of course the author’s opinion is meant purely to entertain the idea of making a rightwing conservative in charge of the Supreme Court and the impact it might have, but to imply such a radical outcome questions the author’s prerogative. After reading the article it becomes apparent that Cohen is purely concerned with bashing Bush and pointing out his conservative views.

Blog #10 - Rob Piatkowski

2004-10-19T16:14:00.000-05:00

"Scare Packages"

“Scare Packages” is an editorial from the "Washington Post" that describes how the Democratic and Republican candidates are battling for the Presidency by using exaggerated statements that make the other candidate look appalling and unwanted. The editorial starts off with an analogy, referring to a New Yorker cartoon, which is beneficial to the author’s point. The author also tries to be equally critical of both candidates. By doing so the author’s political beliefs are not directly stated, but it is apparent that the author does not like the methods of campaigning used by President Bush and Senator Kerry, which is the main focus of the editorial. The author’s voice is informative but not intense and the audience seems to be Republicans and Democrats who are not so deeply fixed to their own party that the other candidate is always wrong and theirs is always correct, and the undecided voters. Ethos is not developed by the author and pathos is not used, so the author relies on logos to prove his or her positions. The author has many quotes in the editorial, “‘With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft,…’” which leads into the author’s own opinions, “It's true, as Mr. Kerry said, that U.S. forces have been stretched to the limit by the hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq. But it's also true, as he somehow neglected to say, the Mr. Bush has categorically ruled out a draft.” This particular quote discusses Kerry and in fact all of the quotes are used to discuss what Kerry is doing. Bush is mentioned throughout the editorial too, but the author puts more detail into Kerry and then ends the editorial with, “There are reasonable questions about whether private accounts are too risky, and, even if they make sense, how Mr. Bush would pay the immense transition costs. It's too bad Mr. Kerry chooses to try to scare seniors rather than engage in that serious discussion.” This ending actually leads one to wonder if the author is pro-Bush, but more importantly shows what the author believes the candidates should really do.

Blog - The Winner-Take-All System Wins! - Chris Clarke

2004-10-18T20:30:00.000-05:00

After last years extremely close Presidential Debate, I have seen many articles lately on why the winner-take-all system is such a bad idea. Take for example “Improve on Red vs. Blue” While most articles realize that this is a State and not a Federal issue, they don’t seem to realize why many states are not looking to change their habits anytime soon.

Take Texas for instance. It’s about as republican as you get. Why would such a state make it possible for Democrats to get a part of the state? The same goes for many northern states too. If a state is heavily ruled by one party, then there is little chance for them allowing votes to go toward their presidential nominations opponent. Only two states do not use the system, Maine (a swing state) and Nebraska (only 5 electoral votes), and Colorado has considered it (another swing state). For those that haven’t noticed a pattern, getting large states .or non-swing states to drop the current system doesn’t look likely

Most people will agree that eliminating the current system would be the most democratic and would represent the public better. But people seem to not see this as wishful thinking. The only way this would be possible is if they made it a federal issue, another thing that is not easily done. So it looks ladies and gentlemen that the winner-take-all system is here to stay, no matter how many editorials are written on the subject or how much everyone realizes that we would be better off without them.

Differences can be seen - Paul Wach

2004-10-14T12:28:00.000-05:00

In "Final debate further defines stark Bush-Kerry divide," the author attempts to explain the differences between the two candidates. The author describes the candidates in a way that many would find to be untruthful. Bush is described as a man who goes with his gut feeling and Kerry is said to be a "master of detail." Many I have spoken to feel that Kerry lacks subatance in his speach. It is a fact that Bush gave figures, such as how much money has gone to the V.A. hospitals. How can one fight such figures? Kerry tries by giving his flip flopping answers. It is true that Bush makes his discissions based on his morals. He will fight gay marraige, abortion, and stem cell research. Kerry claims to be man of morals, but then says that he will allow abortion, gay marraige, and fund stem cell research. It was a belief of the founding fathers that this country had to have moral values, otherwise there would be nothing to seperate us from animals.

Blog #8 - Bumjoon Kim

2004-10-14T10:45:00.000-05:00

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-13-debate-analysis_x.htm

It was an intense debate. Both candidates, surprisingly also President Bush, came out strong and punched back and forth each other. The subject was domestic issues, and they debated about tax cut, medical care, and so on. Even the poll after the debate shows more people favored Kerry as a winner of debate; President Bush was very strong in debate skills compare to his previous ones. Both candidates used some name-calling. For example, Kerry depicted Bush as a tool for wealthy, although he didn’t say it directly, and Bush called Kerry as a far-left liberal, and out of mainstream. Kerry’s name-calling might be persuasive those who are so poor and suffering from taxes. It was doubtful why President Bush mentioned his educational policy, when question was about minimum-wage. We all know education is an investment for the future, and his plan is too vague for those who are suffering right now. Even his appreciated ‘No Child Left Behind’ policy works perfectly, there will be people uneducated and need more minimum-wage support. President Bush started his answer with it is also about human rights, but his answer was nothing about human rights. President’s comment for Kerry as a far-left liberal will be persuasive those who are conservative and just hate every liberal sided, but does not mean a lot for most people, because we all know the major candidates are just about in the middle. In most cases, the incumbent are more defensive, because the other side attacks incumbent’s previous work. President Bush counterattacked efficiently by using Kerry’s previous vote record in his Senator career. Finally, their explanation about their position in issues like gun control, abortion, affirmative action, and gay marriage was decisive for those who want to know about Presidential candidates’ core value.

Blog #7 - Bumjoon Kim

2004-10-13T00:32:00.000-05:00

As President Bush and Senator Kerry facing the last debate dealing with the domestic issues, both candidates try to challenge other side in advance. Kerry seems ahead of Bush in area of domestic social issues. Democrats basically want more of government intervention to people, if it’s necessary, so they can offer more suggestion. Another related problem is that of tax cuts. Tax cut is welcomed by everyone, but it results less funds to do social work for government. Bush fires a bullet with telling Kerry’s plan of tax cut on middle class will make him to lie about most of his social plan. While President Bush is current giving tax cut for wealthy people in order to create jobs, Kerry promised sweet offer to lower class a tax cut. Kerry refute it by it only happens under President Bush’s calculation. Kerry attacked Bush’s administration by pointing oil price record out. He said Bush’s oil plan only helps his friends but most Americans. Bush counterattacked Kerry is kind of ignoring terrorists.
President Bush’s strong point is not a domestic issue. Republicans support more tax cut in usual, they cannot offer broad social issues as Democrats offer. The biggest achievement of Bush’s administration is that of war against terrorists, and that’s the place they are strong. The war against terrorists, which is in the Middle East, is also closely related with the oil crisis. A tax cut on the rich and the oil company is related. Both candidates have strong and weak points, and they know how they will be attacked. Except for some experts, we don’t know whose plan is unrealistic or who’s lying about other’s policy. It’s time for us to examine both candidates’ plan carefully, and decide the one depends on our values.

Thoughts on articles

2004-10-12T12:03:00.000-05:00

The article "Which terrorist is Kerry?" seemed to show all the cliches that were part of the political campaign and all the ones that are part of the current campaign. Many things are said that have no relevance to the campaign, but are reapeated over and over to get meaningless points across. It seems to make no sence, but whatever canidate seems to come up with the best one-liners seems to do the best in elections. Those ideas were not what the article was about, but it got me thinking along those lines. "Voters visualize Kerry presidency" makes me very upset. That people like the idea of him coming out and saying that he will only tax families that make $200,000 or more. It seems like outriight socialisim if you ask me. Its not fair that politicians can single out a minority of the population to win votes. Its absolutly rediculus and that poeple like the idea is what gets me. This is America and people do earn their money, no matter what many of the bleeding hearts in Washignton tell you. Its totally bogas. If Kerry is president his tort reform will probably benifit the trial lawyers more than the families and doctors its supposed to protect. If Kerry is elected President America is in serious trouble.

Blog #7 - Dan Grigoras

2004-10-11T22:51:00.000-05:00

The article “Candidates arrested at debate- Libertarian, Green party nominees tried to serve commission” is all about how the Libertarian and Green party candidates were opposed to the bipartisan debate and tried to intervene to express the undemocratic nature of the debates. The author states “Just as the debate began, the two candidates purposely crossed a police barricade and were arrested.” Immediately indicating that the two candidates knew what they were doing. The idea to hold a debate that includes all the presidential candidates regardless of their win potential is interesting. Perhaps one of the reason third parties are so ignored and excluded from media coverage and public opinion is the hold back created by the rules and regulations established by the very government they wish to change. Perhaps if the debates were all held together, and all the questions were asked to all the candidates, the general public would have a better understanding of the third parties’ politics and could make a better decision on who to vote for. Weather or not the author was just stating factual events or conveying an opinion; the idea to debate with all the candidates like a true democratic debate should be more investigated and negotiated to better reveal the political views of all potential US candidates.

link for discussion

2004-10-11T14:04:00.000-05:00

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108018/

Presidential Debate

2004-10-11T09:10:00.000-05:00

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20041011/a_hype11.art.htm

Interesting article about third party canadites protesting the debates.

2004-10-10T15:20:00.000-05:00

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40843

Blog #9 - Rob Piatkowski

2004-10-10T14:06:00.000-05:00

"Round Two"

The author of “Round Two” almost equally describes the flaws and highpoints of the Democratic and Republican candidates at that second Presidential debate. The author uses a calm, informative, nonpartisan voice to share his or her opinion with the audience. Besides just the author’s tone of voice, each candidate is criticized fairly equally and both sides’ opinions are taken into account, “Mr. Bush depicted Mr. Kerry as a tax-hiking liberal too concerned with winning international popularity contests; Mr. Kerry portrayed Mr. Bush as a man who "didn't make the right judgments" and resorted to negative campaigning because of the poverty of his record.” From this quote, it is likely that the author was writing to a very broad audience, probably both Republicans and Democrats, except those who favor only one side and think that the other is usually wrong. However, the author does tend to write more negative comments about the President, which may be his personal politics showing, or more probably, just how he or she perceived the debate. The author uses a combination of evaluative and narrative arguments in the editorial. The editorial has narrative qualities because the author somewhat discusses what went on during the debate. The evaluation argument technique is what is used most because the author is critiquing the debate, “Bush described himself as a ‘good steward of the land,’ but his description did not match his record of opening federal lands to oil and gas exploration, retreating from action on climate change and weakening regulation on clean air.” Practical criteria were the foremost criteria present in this editorial. This also ties in with logos, because the author is trying to write about the debate in a way that takes both Republicans and Democrats into consideration. Pathos is not really in this editorial. If it was, the author would be asserting much more of his or her own opinions onto the audience instead of letting the audience interpret what is written in their own way. The author does not develop any ethos though, so there is not much creditability, however, much of what was written does not take special qualifications at the levels of the presented information, of which some were facts. Finally, the author ends the editorial by leading into what may and what should be discussed in the next and final debate.

Link : Vaibhav Shah

2004-10-10T04:35:00.000-05:00

TIME.com: A Draw, and Maybe a Win for Kerry

Link - Dan Grigoras

2004-10-09T20:13:00.000-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/opinion/10sun1.html

Link - bumjoon kim

2004-10-09T19:46:00.000-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/09/politics/campaign/09debate.html

Link - Round 2 editorial

2004-10-09T15:24:00.000-05:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19319-2004Oct9.html

Presidential Debate #1

2004-10-07T10:34:00.000-05:00

Unfortunately for Bush supporters, President George W. Bush did not present himself very well. It appeared that he lacked the confidence he had in the year 2000 election. In multiple cases he stumbled, searching for answers. In this I am disappointed, but I feel that these debates are more of a trial for Kerry than for Bush. We already know where Bush stands on issues. We know how he will lead the country. It is obvious that Kerry is the better speaker, but the question is, is he the better leader? It seemed that Kerry's logic lacked substance. I may note be able to quote him directly, but this is what I understood him say. Kerry once said in the debate, 'there is no such thing as pollution; it is just chemicals in the air and water.' I have no clue where he was going with that one. It also confused when Kerry said Bush made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq. Excuse me, if it was a mistake, then was it not also Kerry's mistake seeing that he, a member of congress, voted to have them go. As President Bush said, “The only thing consistent about my opponent is his inconsistency."

Xbox Generation

2004-10-07T10:16:00.000-05:00

I admit, before walk ing into the lecture room, I was expecting to hear some politcally one side information being shoved down my throat. Instead of this, I heard a speach on why I should fallow my goals. Vince Keenan, the speaker, had a goal to make it easier for youth to vote. Seeing as the majority of eligible non-voters are people from the age of eighteen to twenty five, he targeted this group. In order to connect with such a group you must find something they are all linked to, the internet. Due to much confussion on where people were supposed to vote, this would be the main topic. Keenan created a website that takes into perspective thing I would never have thought of. For example, he considered the fact that people would much rather move the mouse two inches to press a button than four. For few months before the website was to be launched, 9/11 occured, since he had pictures of airplanes on the site, he felt it better to change this. Since Vince Keenan has put his website on the internet, the voting rate in his area has gone way up. Goals are important parts of life that one should fallow.

Blog #6- Bumjoon Kim

2004-10-05T13:01:00.000-05:00

The first presidential debate was about the foreign policy. In the form of delivering words, Kerry was absolutely better than Bush. Kerry never exceeded the given amount of time, and no hesitation was seen during the debate. On the other hand, Bush stuttered couple times, especially he once paused a few seconds. Bush didn’t have that kind of professional debater’s skill, but he has his own kind of skill which emphasizes a few topics and delivers it very strongly. Bush’s words of the day were that ‘the world is more peaceful without Saddam Hussein,’ and ‘Kerry keeps changing his position about the war as the political situation changes, and that kind of leader can’t lead the U.S.’ The Kerry’s flip-flopping image is this main weakness of the night, but he evaded the attack successfully and even counterattacked. Kerry admitted his failure to misconceive the Bush’s plan of the war, but indicated that Bush’s was without plan is worse than his misconception. One of Kerry’s troubles was that he did not say how he will gather allies, so it is more persuasive that Bush said someone like Kerry won’t gather allies. It is now Kerry’s job to prove how he precedes the war. I am from South Korea, and their indication about North Korea was interesting. Kerry said he will finish the job in 4 years which Bush couldn’t do in 13 years. There could be one best solution for the foreign policy, but no one knows how things will change. Kerry could say he will do things better than Bush, but he can’t promise the time limit because it might rush him into the problem just like Kerry said Bush’s done in Iraq. This debate was even for both candidates; they said what they want to say. There is a clear difference of defining ‘the center of the war on terror,’ and they have a different solution for it. It is now in hands of voters to determine candidates in foreign policy.

Debate Transcript
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html

Bush speaks in Iowa

2004-10-05T09:57:00.000-05:00

Bush went to Iowa to talk about the debate. He lost Iowa by a slim margin and is considered a battleground state. Bush brought up many times that Kerry had flipped his position on the war several times, but had never changed his position on taxes. Bush labeled Kerry as a 'tax and spend liberal' sighting that Kerry had voted 98 times in the Senate over the past 20 years to raise the taxes. Bush went to Iowa in order to talk about his tax relief program there. It seemed he still had to defend himself after the debate. I felt like Bush was on the defensive the entire article, Leher seemed to ask all the critical questions to Bush, while leaving Kerry many opportunities to bash Bush. Kerry's most critical question was about what Bush did wrong and was entirely unfair to Bush. The debate was entirely one sided, and hopefully the next debate will be more o a debate and more balanced in the questions asked. It seems the polls have shifted into more of an even situation than before the debate, but you can never trust those things. The elections going to be very close if the trends continue. Bush needs to be more aggressive and blame Kerry on his many stances on the military. The next debate should be a real debate as well, this last debate seems as though it was staged and they managed to just spout one-liners at each other for an hour and a half. Bush came to Iowa to announce his tax relief and hoped to win the state he had lost in the last election.

Blog #8 - Rob Piatkowski

2004-10-05T00:03:00.000-05:00

The First 2004 Presidential Debate

The Presidential Debate began as the two candidates walked onto the stage and shook each other’s hand. Each wanted to appear as the better and to show that they are the kinder and more respectful candidate. Both wanted to have an appealing ethos. As expected, the debate picked up and both were trying to make themselves seem better, either by saying what they will do, or like most of the time, saying why the other will not be a good President. It seemed that there was a lot said, but not about how it would be done; this occurred from both Kerry and Bush. This lack of logos makes one wonder how it will be possible to do something if the current administration is having trouble. The majority of the debate revolved around the War in Iraq. Kerry would say that the war is not appropriate, while Bush would say that it is. This leads into some logical fallacies, some being name calling and oversimplification, Kerry said, ”I can make American safer than President Bush has made us.” and Bush said, “No I don't believe it's going to happen. I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead.” Others include slippery slope, and of course begging the question. Kerry began an answer, “Jim, let me tell you exactly what I'll do. And there are a long list of thing.” and Bush said, “And so, the answer to your question is…”. When time is extremely important it would be a better idea to get as much information across instead of filling time with statements of no value. It seems that most of the other logical fallacies were also used at one point or another. The President and Kerry also used their individual voice styles to relate to their respective audiences. They each seemed to be aiming for their own supporters and not as much towards the undecided voters. This is because much of what was debated were topics that have been covered by the media, so there was only a little bit of new information presented.

XBox Gen: Voting

2004-09-30T12:54:00.000-05:00

The presentation was not about voting or the importance of it rather it was about his web site. Although it was interesting, it was not what I expected. I was hoping for something about voting because I am not very into all the web sites and stuff as I am into politics. He showed a great amount of determination in creating the web site. It seems he never gave up, no matter what the situation looked liked. That was very impressive, and the fact that he kept preceding despite the fact that he would be guaranteed any money. The state of Michigan is in a very fortunate state after all the collaborating on the web site. This is very beneficial to the electors in Michigan, where they can see where they must go to vote. The presentation was not on voting, but the website. This interested me a little, although I am almost computer illiterate. The benefits are obvious with the addition of the program to recourses for Michigan voters. I hope that more states will have a system like this to prevent another 2000 election debacle, and so that voters will know where to go to vote. One day it should maybe provide views of the candidates that they posted. Doing something such as that would allow people to research the candidates in a short simple way.

I would like to ask him, since he is so involved in politics and the internet if he sees voting and voter registration to be able to be done online. This would be convenient and enable many more people to vote. The only problem is the security issue, as identity theft would be a big problem. I would just like to know his thought on the issue.

Blog #6 - Dan Grigoras

2004-09-30T12:45:00.000-05:00

Vince Keenan's lecture titled Electronic Democracy and Generation XBox dealt with better preparing voters in educating them about their potential representatives' political views and beliefs. Keenan's website, PUBLIUS, even goes so far as to include documentation about ever specific candidate and the poll ballots for every county's representatives. Vince's political determination should be a model to candidates and constituents of all parties.
Questions for Keenan:
Who do you think will win the election and why?
If you could do things over again regarding your website, what would you do differently?

Electronic Democracy and Generation Xbox

2004-09-30T09:32:00.000-05:00

Vince Keenan’s lecture was one I found interesting. It was basically a story about him wanting to make voting in Michigan much simpler than its system at the time. While it was interesting to hear him talk about the changes to his project over time, I was disappointed that he really gave very few opinions on why voting is important. I think this Lecture would have been much more useful for a student who was taking web design or such. The most important thing I was able to take away was the importance of pursuing your ideas and to never stop.

Questions for Keenan:
Coming from the dot com industry, did this help you to be able to create a successful website?

Have you thought about doing any other online projects on other political topics?

Blog #5- Bumjoon Kim

2004-09-29T16:03:00.000-05:00

This is an editorial which advices Kerry to beat Bush for this upcoming debates. And the obvious reason this article is interesting is that the author is Al Gore who was in the same position as John Kerry four years ago. Kerry was a captain of speech team since middle school, and is known to be very experienced debater. On the other hand, Bush sometimes made inconsistent mistakes on his speech, and people make fun of him. Al Gore gives tension to Kerry that the fact which is Mr. Bush becomes the president itself is an enough proof of his eligible ability of debates. If Kerry knows the strong and weak sides of himself, there is a better chance of driving Bush into a tight corner. The critical point is that Bush isn’t at the same situation as he was at four years ago. He has a record of what he has done for his presidency. Al Gore’s indication of the list of Bush’s failing to perform a duty is very effective, because simply by using it, Bush can have a negative image of ‘flip-flopper’. The author tells the mass amount of advertisement brings utter strings of flattering compliments about candidates, but not the true nature of themselves which is more important for voters to know. It’s true. And the importance of debates intensifies, because candidates can’t get an advice from assistances, and they have to say what they think to say. The U.S. contains some troubles right now. More people think the situation in Iraq isn’t good as expected. The total number of jobs is decreasing, and many people are not covered by health insurance. If John Kerry successfully connects those problems with what Bush’s done for four years, Kerry will get what he wants from the debates.

Blog #5 - Dan Grigoras

2004-09-27T20:51:00.000-05:00

Christopher Countey speaks about Kerry’s different views on the Iraq situation in his editorial titled “The Iraq War, in Kerry’s View (7 Letters).” The editorial is actually a response to several statements made in other editorials about John Kerry. In the responses, Countey points out what he believes Kerry’s views are on specific issues. The article states what Kerry’s response might be regarding the war when Bush might ask tell him “Mr. Kerry if it were up to you, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.” The author suggests that an affective response to this might be to say “Yes, if it had been up to me, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and more than 1,000 Americans soldiers would still be alive. Thousands of Iraqis would still be alive. Our country would be several hundred billion dollars richer, and the United States would not have squandered the good will it received from around the world in the wake of Sept. 11.” This statement suggests that Kerry’s views regarding the war are the same as the usual liberal who are typically opposed to war. Although the author’s statements are a bit crude and presumptuous, they seem to logically represent the typical response of the common liberal. However, he fails to inform the reader why John Kerry would respond the way he says Kerry would. This would be greatly helpful if not completely mandatory to give any of these assumptions some validity.

Blog #7 - Rob Piatkowski

2004-09-26T14:35:00.000-05:00

“Mr. Bush and Iraq”

“Mr. Bush and Iraq” is a well written editorial from the Washington Post about the current situation in Iraq and how the President is handling the situation. According to this editorial, Mr. Bush is not admitting that things are not going the way we would like them to in Iraq and that the Iraqi election in 2005 will be hard to make successful. In general, the author’s voice is informative, but it is not overpowering or obsessive. The voice fits well with the audience, which is probably both Republicans and Democrats, because the author keeps mentioning that Bush has made mistakes and is not doing what he should be, but the author also does give some credit to President Bush, “Whatever his rhetoric, Mr. Bush deserves to be judged by this record. In our view, it is one of courage in setting goals and steadfastness in sticking to them but also one of extraordinary recklessness and incompetence in execution.” It does seem that the author thinks Bush should be reelected. The author also takes into consideration both sides on this situation by mentioning that the war would probably have been hard even if done differently and that the insurgency would still have existed, “It may be that the current disorder in Iraq was inevitable following a U.S. invasion and that a wiser approach could not have prevented it. Yet we believe Mr. Bush could have achieved much more.” and “We believed the president was right to confront the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and like the vast majority of Iraqis, we welcomed the removal of that murderous regime. Yet even before the war it seemed to us that Mr. Bush was failing to recognize or prepare for the fact that the postwar reconstruction of Iraq would be long, difficult and dangerous.” The author also tries to convey his or her message across by appealing to the audience’s pathos by mentioning the total death count and that, “…thousands more as well have paid a terrible cost….” The author builds an ethos with the chosen voice, but there is not too much support given, so there was not too much logos, and the author, whose name is not given, does not seem to have any special credentials. However, many of the points made are obvious and shared by many people.

No Votes in Leipzig: POST

2004-09-25T00:57:00.001-05:00

Link: Kerry on Iraq

2004-09-23T13:57:00.000-05:00

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/20/kerry.iraq/

Blog - War on Terror - Paul Wach

2004-09-23T12:49:00.000-05:00

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-22-kerry_x.htm
Nedra Pickler begins her article, Kerry says Bush in 'make-believe worl,' misleading American people, with a the same quote said in the title. It is hard for a reader who did not actually hear Kerry say these words determine if these are the words of Kerry or of the author. There are no qoutation marks around it which lead a reader to believe that these are the words of Pickler. Perhaps the author made a mistake, forgetting to put qoutations these words. Either way this is not the strongest way to begin an article. In the second paragraph, one can notice that Kerry contradicts himself, saying that there are both only a "handful of terrorists in Iraq" and that "communities are overun with terrorists." Which one is it?, is a question that should be asked to Kerry. Later on in the essay, Pickler brings up a valuable point about Bush. He again failed to get the support of the U.N., whose support could likely end the war. Nedra Pickler's swaying of evidence makes it difficult for a reader to find her agenda. For example she quotes Kerry saying that he will do a better job in Iraq, and in the next paragraph she qoutes Cheney saying that Kerry lacks "clarity of vission." Pickler does a good job a reporting the news rather than trying to sway the readers one way or the other.

Link about iraq's take on wat

2004-09-23T12:06:00.000-05:00

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040923/D859DRJO0.html

Blog/Link - Chris Clarke

2004-09-23T09:12:00.000-05:00

For class discussion about campaigns and war I have chosen “Talking Sense, at Last, on Iraq” found in the New York Times. This is yet another exciting editorial about John Kerry and views on the War in Iraq. These Op-eds have gone from criticizing him for making no platform to criticizing him for making it too late. This is an interesting way to write the article I must say. It starts off by saying that it has taken Kerry forever to make a solid platform on the war and then celebrates his recent statements on the war in Iraq which the editor says shows a much more defined opinion, something most of us have yet to see. While one would think such an editorial would only focus on the subject of Kerry and his views of the war, like many liberal editorials, it digresses into talking about how bad of a job George Bush is doing and how horrible the current state of the war is. The unnamed author seems to give John Kerry a lot of criticism in the opening paragraph, almost make him seem unbiased. Yet through the body and conclusion he takes every opportunity to bash the Bush campaign. It’s very unfortunate that only half of the editorial stays on the topic because while the author may have made a few well developed and original observations, there are just too many points that seem all too typical and unsupported causing the average reader to question the article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/21/opinion/21tue1.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials&pagewanted=print&position=

Link-"Mr. Bush and Iraq"

2004-09-23T00:36:00.000-05:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32161-2004Sep18.html