Optimism or Pessimism.

It can hard find optimistic journalism. The stories are generally not as well received and are read less. But can't the journalists at least try? Recently President Obama announced that another surge of troops would be happening. Looking at CNN's website for their political pieces, one finds articles with titles such as:

Key points of Obama's strategy | Will it work?

Senators question 2011
Afghan exit plan, Lawmakers Wednesday on Capitol Hill sharply criticized President Obama's plan to start a U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in July 2011.

President's Afghan drawdown plan called risky
Afghanistan timetable may be too short to achieve its aims but too long to hold American public support, observers say.

It would pretty nice if at least some of the articles could show some optimism, or if they could at least not be pessimistic. Even they don't want to support the President, some support for the troops is always welcome. As Backseatsman said so well, they are doing an awesome job and deserve our support. Why can't we at least show some optimism for their sake?

Religion's Proper Place

It's interesting seeing how the media views religion's place in politics. One second a religion can be hailed as paving the way of a brighter future. The next moment they can be condemned for meddling. A prime example of this is found in the recent news in Salt Lake City. The LDS church recently voiced its approval of a new bit of city regulation that would make it illegal to discriminate based on sexual preference. The media hailed this as an important step and the church's support added more impetus to the bill's passing. But only a little while before the church was under fire for supporting Proposition 8 in California. In both cases the church voiced its stance on legitimate concerns. In both cases the church got involved in politics. But only in one were they blamed as meddling.
Another example was given by Agrippa in his recent post, the case of Patrick Kennedy and the Catholic church. He was recently barred from taking Communion, and the reason was for some of his political actions. This was viewed as meddling in politics and as undue pressure by the church. Yet the church was acting as it saw right. It voiced its opinion and acted as it had authority to do. Yet it is called interfering.
It would seem that the only position left to religion these days is to voice approbation. As soon as a religion steps up and voices disapproval of someone's political actions or a political movement, it is labeled as meddling and crossing the line. Can they not say their piece as well? Can they not act as they see fit? They are legitimate groups protected by the Constitution of the United States, in the First Amendment, yet they are being seen as a nuisance. You would think more tolerance would be given thinking of how important religion is to so many Americans, how important religion has been in America's history, and how much religions are doing today to improve the quality of life in America, both in their teachings and in their charity given.

Stop doing what made us rich! Please?

The Obama administration is attempting to get many countries to get on board a worldwide agreement that would enact different laws aimed at stopping global warming. Obama met with China last week to propose what his administration feels are important laws to pass such as “cap and trade” laws on emissions. This effort to propose a form of universal “eco-friendly” laws has failed before and will most likely fail again for the same reasons. These proposed laws are battled here in the United States and these augments carry over globally, augments such as, critics of a “man made” global warming say the studies are inadequate and truly do not prove there is a correlation between humans and global warming, this may be the mentality many countries share. It is also important to look at the cost/benefit aspect of the new laws. Countries such as India and China are countries that produce large amounts of pollution but may be seeing huge economic benefits from their pollution, their economies are growing rapidly because of their new industries much like the United States did years ago, so now for us to ask them to stop this growth and to do something that most likely will impact their economies negatively is not going to pass easily. I understand countries not wanting to put laws on their developing business because of their lack of superior technology to compensate for it or even the fact that these laws will send many third world countries that rely on not having pollution laws to keep the businesses they otherwise would not have to an even deeper third world. Does the Obama administration analyze the cost/benefit impact that these global laws will have on not only us but the other countries around the world… because the countries they are proposing them to most likely are.

Good job Catholics

Patrick Kennedy's name didn't get him out of this pickle. The Catholic Bishop in Providence instructed the Congressman, and son of Ted Kennedy, to not take communion because of his personal stance on abortion. Now the democrats are screaming unfair because Kennedy was denied the blessing of communion. Numbers of news sources have posted negative articles about the Catholic church and it's meddling in U.S. politics but lest look at some facts.
1. The Catholic church is a formal religion in every manner that the word 'formal' can imply.
2. Kennedy's view does in fact contradict against the teachings of the church.
With these points in mind the only conclusion I can logically side with is the Catholics. Kennedy, you went against the rules and no, your name can't get you out of it. Perhaps the Bishop did do this out of spite but that does not negate the fact that he is in the right and Kennedy you are not.
I am happy that a religion, any religion, is standing up for what they believe in. To many of our politicians profess their undying loyalty to a religious group during elections year and then show up in the news being arrested in a airport bathroom. Let this be a wake up call for politicians that claim to be something that they are not and never have been. I realize my vain hope of trustworthy and honest political elite is never going to happen. The idea is even laughable that such a person could survive in American politics. Call me a cynic (because I am) but more events need to transpire in a country that was founded by Christians.

The real G.I. Joes

During class a few weeks back we discussed war coverage by the media and as a class debated whether the media has changed its style of coverage of being in a sense more pro-war by covering victories and heroes to become more anti-war and coving the defeats and deaths. When the issue of war coverage is raised I understand why many journalists chose to write negative articles about it because there are many tragedies that come with war, I do however worry that at many times it is not the politicians who are affected from this form of coverage but the men and women actually fighting the battle. I will always remember when my brother came home after serving months in Afghanistan, my family all gathered around him as he spoke about his war experiences and the things he witnessed. He seemed to speak about the heroic things he and his fellow soldiers did for each other and for others around them, he also spoke more on the positive things he experienced than the negative. I was very confused on how someone could have had positive experiences participating in something so evil (I was easily influenced by the media at this age) and it bothered me to think my brother enjoyed certain aspects of his time at war. I remember trying to change his attitude toward the war by explaining all the horrible things I had heard about it and his reaction to my attempt was unforgettable, all my brother did was turn to me and say, “I don’t care if you believe in the war or if you agree with it but believe in the troops and support them no matter what, never lose sight of the guys in the trenches and always be thankful for what they did and do for you.” The look in his eyes and the tone in his voice was enough to help me understand that many of the soldiers knew support for the war was low and this negativity carried over into the soldiers’ feelings of self worth and accomplishment there. This moment has forever changed my view of war, I am not saying I support war but I am saying I will always be more aware of the affect my voice has on those who fight the war and I believe the media should do the same. Why can’t the media highlight the soldiers more? Why can’t the media cover their bravery and individual acts of courage more? I know there is a way where media can keep covering the negative aspects of war but still cast a continual positive light over the men and women serving in it. We have to remember these men and women who join the military are not the ones who decide when we fight a war they are only the ones willing to fight when called upon and to me this makes them heroes, heroes who should get proper credit for their bravery.

Terrorist? Media name calling

As well as reading the local and national newspaper every morning I also subscribe to TIME magazine. Last month's magazine was focused on the shootings at Fort Hood that occurred this month. One of the most interesting things about the article, to me, wasn't the details or the "expert" opinions but the cover of the magazine for the month. It consisted of a portrait of Nidal Malik Hasan with is eyes blocked out with the word Terrorist? So why the ? Why has the media been so back and forth on what to call Hasan and how does their indecision on his identity influence on how the public views the incident?

CNN recently interviewed a criminologist by the name Pat Brown. His his interview Dr. Brown was quoted as saying this about the personality of Hasan. "He was simply a lonely guy who had issues, problems, psychopathic behaviors that escalated to the point where he wanted to get back at society, and he took it out on his workmates like most of them do." Never once while being interviewed would Dr. Brown discuss the possible impacts of Hasan's recent enthusiasm for Muslim faith or what the role of his faith had on his decision to attack the base.

The White House initially treated the situation in the same way. On November 5, after being notified of the killings President Obama addressed the nation in a rushed press conference. But instead of seeing an image of a somber Commander we saw a man who seemed completely unsympathetic. Opening the conference with "shout-outs" and jokes was not what people were expecting or what they wanted to see.

With this kind of reaction taking place my next question would be what the motivation is for avoiding calling him what he appears to be. One explanation could be political. If Obama should start calling him a terrorist then that would mean an act of Terrorism took place on U.S. soil during his presidency. Another could simply be that the national media and government is stuck in a definition debate. Should we call every Muslim that commits a murder or a crime in this country a terrorist? Is a terrorist only someone that is born on foreign soil and wants to hurt others? I don't have an answer to that question... and I would bet that the media doesn't either.

But what I do know is that a publics reaction to an event like this depends a lot on how the media frames it. And to just call Hasan a "lonely man" paints the wrong picture of what happened. As the details continue to emerge it is looking more and more like Hasan acted because of his beliefs. With personal emails linking him to fundamentalist groups, and cards referring to him as a fighter of Islam, it might make sense to call him a Terrorist. The TIMES article mentioned the idea of referring to him as a lone-wolf terrorist, or a terrorist that can self motivate from just the knowledge of other groups. And if its true that Hasan should be called a terrorist then does that mean that men like McVeigh should also be referred to as committing acts of Terror?

This issue is complicated and I won't go about pretending like I know the answers to these questions. But it seems to me that the media has for one reason or another failed to give this incident the intensity that it deserves. The tragedy at Fort Hood is the largest attack on a national military base in our country's history. And whether or not the military tribunal that will sentence Hasan refers to him as a terrorist, it is my sincere hope that they give him the death he deserves. But before then the media should give him his proper title.

Open and ready for business.

The Senate on Saturday(21st) voted to open the session for debate on the Health Care legislation that could change the USA for better or worse. That is what I think is being over looked by all of the negative statements coming out of both camps of political thought. Yes the GOP might disagree with the legislation and the Dem's might love it but one thing is for sure. It has taken many hard and difficult hurdles for this debate to be heard. Even without dwelling on individuals personal preference one should often take a glance at the system and say, we'll the framers got something right.
This has been a long and painful process. Even yesterday on cnn.com I saw a article informing us that curiosity and interest in the entire health care debate is weaning. Perhaps this is because of the double digit unemployment rate? Who knows, I just wanted to point out the subtle obviousness of the system working much like it is suppose to.