Starting some trouble...

Since the Wikileaks release of the documents last week, it has stirred up amounts of trouble between numerous countries. Not only has there been information released about the United States, but China,Israel, and Afghanistan as well. The documents have released a great deal of information about what the people in the U.S. embassies have been involved in, including supposed spying on other countries and blocked transfers of missile technology with China. The release of the Wikileaks is going to upset alot of other countries and can potentially harm the relationships with the allies that the U.S. currently has. There were specific names released on the cables of the Wikileaks and that could also create targets and potential harm on people who shouldn't be exposed. There were also specific locations and where certain protected areas are.

China in specific has spoken out about their views on the recent release of the cables on Wikileaks. China is using their freedom of the press, or lack there of, to try to block any information released about China. So far, China has been exposed of being the people who hacked Google after a member of the Politburo "googled" himself and didn't like the results. Also, the cables are making it very awkward for China and the U.S. because of an exchange between the two countries that wasn't supposed to be released WAS released. The "CableGate" page has been blocked by Chinese officials in charge of the regulation on Internet usage there. Also, the free use of Twitter is being monitored and parts of Twitter are being blocked as well. Obviously China is nervous about what is going to be released or has been released, so they are taking all efforts to prevent release of unintended materials.

In my opinion, just like in China, people should be charged for releasing these secret cables that expose the U.S. and other countries to danger. They do it in China, why not here? I know that there is Freedom of Speech and Expression in the United States, but shouldn't there be some kind of limit that is put onto the people who cause problems in the country and also make issues more dangerous by involving our allies?



Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep-4U24_d4w
China wikileaks:
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2010/11/29/china-trying-to-plug-wikileak/?mod=e2tw

Music and Politics (cont'd)

I can't figure out how to post two videos in one blog!!! :( So here's the second video that goes with my music and politics blog!!

Music and Politics

There are an ample amount of songs that have political messages, both outright and as undertones. There are many artists, such as Toby Keith, who is very explicit in the way that he feels about the War in Iraq, Taliban, and America in general. Other artists have songs that contain more implicit undertones.



The first artist that I chose to show the link between music and politics is Toby Keith. He is a very patriotic musician and it is very evident through his songs. He sings songs like "Courtesy of the Red,White, and Blue", "American Soldier", and "The Taliban Song". I chose to embed "The Taliban Song" because I thought it was a funny way to show the link between music and politics; however, the lyrics of the song actually make fun of a real situation that has to do strictly with politics. In this song, he creates comedic relief for a sore subject for so many people.

The next artist that I chose was Miranda Lambert. She is also a country singer that mostly sings about love and memories, but she does have a song that has a political undermining that may not have been meant to be so. Her song "Only Prettier" is about girls being alot alike, but one being better than the other. In this song, the chorus says "Let's shake hands and reach across those party lines. You got your friends just like I got mine. We might think a little differently, but we got alot in common you will see, We're just like you, Only Prettier". This chorus makes me think of the differences in partisanship. There is a great similarity between Democrats and Republicans regarding platform, but there are some small differences that make each party unique.

http://http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pp66FNd54M
There are so many other songs that talk about soldiers fighting in wars, peace, and others that talk more about politics alone, but these are the ones that stuck out to me.

Media Attention

Running across a tweet in Twitter today, I found that someone had the same questions as I do regarding the media. Chris Cuomo tweeted " ChrisCuomo Is media wrong to cater to obvious interest in royal wedding? When media covers "real issues" audience often drops...so who is to "blame"?"
I don't really have the answers to his questions, but I often wonder why a television show is interrupted for "breaking news" that Prince William proposed to Kate Middleton when there is so much more going on in the world. I often have the same questions as to why people enjoy soft news so much more than the hard news like the Haiti Cholera outbreak. How many people reading this know about the cholera outbreak rather than the Royal Family's new engagement?
I believe that the journalists choose to report on more soft news because they feel it is more newsworthy based on the attention span of Americans and others in the world. The sensationalized stories appeal to the eye of more people because it is interesting and catches their attention. I tend to like those stories as well, but it seems as though there should be more balance in the reporting of news.
According to the Mass Media and Audience powerpoint from class, there has been an information explosion from the new media and people tend to pay attention to more stories that are not so complex.

Controversy over Nobel Peace Prize

The Nobel Peace Prize winner, Liu Xiaobo, is one of the many peace prize winners who have been detained or imprisoned while winning the peace prize. Xiaobo has been convicted of subversion against the Chinese government and sent to prison for 11 years. He is the 2010 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for his use of nonviolence in his attempts to regain his fundamental human rights.

According to the article, the Chinese government has blacked out all announcements of the winning by this man. The government says that Norway should not have awarded the prize to Xiaobo because of his revolutionary acts against the country. China is threatening to cut ties with Norway.

In my opinion, the press freedom of China is very limited and that China is overreacting in their attempts to cut ties with Norway. It is very apparent that China's press is NOT free. After consulting Freedom House, the website shows that China is labeled as not free for press freedom.

I feel as though Xiaobo earned the prize fairly and accurately represents what Nobel wanted in his will. According to the article, Alfred Nobel left in his will, those who advocate "fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."(yahoo news) Xiaobo was a part of the Tiennamen Square Protests and has been a political advocate of many other things, and seems to be a good candidate to win the prize.

article:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/nobel_peace_prize

Juror released over facebook status

This is a somewhat older story, from August I think, but I feel like it should have earned more spotlight than it did. A juror in a Michigan trial court was released because of her facebook status while off from a day of jury duty. She stated on her status “gonna be fun to tell the defendant they’re guilty.” SERIOUSLY! Even though the girl may have been young, you have to take court seriously. Jury duty could be a joke for some, but someone's life is in your hands, even if it is a matter of 2 days in jail or several years. I feel like the girl did not take her duty seriously and she should be punished for playing around and posting things on facebook. I feel that this story should have been broadcasted or shown more than it was, just to set an example for others that the judicial system is serious. Seems that this story is more newsworthy than it was given credit. The defendant was found guilty in the case, but her mishap could have created many problems if the status wasn't caught.

Here's the article:
http://newsone.com/nation/associatedpress4/facebook-status-gets-juror-dismissed-gonna-be-fun-to-tell-the-defendant-theyre-guilty/

"I'm You"

Regarding Christine O'Donnell's "I'm You" commercial, she seems like a crazy nut. If I were running for an important office, I would never say things in the manner she does. After listening to her message, I confirmed in my head that I would never vote for her. She doesn't seem confident whatsoever. Saying "I'm You" seems elementary. Her message would have come across much more professionally if she would have said "I'm Human" or something to better relate to the constituents that she is trying to reach...
I would have to say that Christine O'Donnell's way of marketing her campaign, and basically marketing herself, was the wrong choice. It does not create a distinction from her opponents, except in the fact that she looks silly and unprofessional.
I honestly don't understand why she says "I'm not a witch, I'm you." It seems like some petty slogan that worked out for her negatively. Just watching things like this, I wouldn't even want to see what her platform is because the way she picks how she wants to portray herself is silly and unprofessional. Hope I didn't push any buttons with anyone, but the way people have reacted so far I don't think I will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGGAgljengs&feature=player_embedded