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

Update on Quran burning...

An article I just read from the Washington Post said that Pastor Terry Jones was never going to burn the Qurans on this 9th anniversary of 9/11. Good call on his part, but what was all the hype about? Why was it ever brought up if he didn't plan on burning the Islamic holy book? I feel that the media overpublicized this man and his talk of burning the Quran. The article said that he went to the "Today Show" and said he wasn't going to burn the books "not today, not ever". Maybe the sentiment of the day changed his mind?? Either way, I'm very glad he changed his mind. I just feel that Terry Jones wanted publicizing for himself and his church and that's what he got. I hope that people would think about what they're doing before they try to interrupt such a day as 9/11.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/11/AR2010091101777.html?tid=nn_twitter

Domino Effect...

Terry Jones, the man from Florida who is planning to burn the numerous Qurans, plans to take action during the anniversary of one of the most eventful days that will always be in the hearts of Americans. September 11th, 2001, was a day that we will always remember. It seems offensive that this man would even want to interrupt the memories of those who lost loved ones during these horrific events. Burning Qurans will hurt nobody, but will only cause more harm than that of what has already been done. The entire Obama administration has banded their words together, all against the burning of the Qurans; however, nothing is being done to stop this man... I feel that he should be repremanded for even suggesting the acts, but since he hasn't committed the acts, I guess there is nothing that can be done. If he does go through with this, what will happen? There will be great uproar, and I feel that it will put our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq in great danger. Even though the church of only 20 people is in America, it doesn't mean that Al Qaida can't get media coverage of the event. That being said, I feel that there may not be action taken so far because of the misconception that Obama is in fact a Muslim. I feel that if Obama acted for or against the burning of the Qurans, it would hurt his ratings as president. Technically, Jones has the right to practice his religion due to his right of freedom of religion in the 1st ammendment, but does infringing on other people's rights cross the line? Isn't it about religious tolerance as well? John Boehner reiterates my point by saying the following:

"House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio on Wednesday tried to lump together the two issues — plans for the Quran-burning and the mosque — saying that 'just because you have the right to do something in America does not mean it's the right thing to do.'"

What do you guys think? Do you agree that there is a domino effect being created starting with the mosque near Ground Zero, then the arsen on the Murfreesboro mosque, and now this? I think so, but let me know how you feel about the matter!!

Here's the link to the article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_go_pr_wh/quran_burning_obama

NYC water not "kosher"

Article: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/02/whats-water-tiny-invisible-shrimp/?test=faces

Wonder why the tap water in NYC is so tasty? There are shrimp in the water. NYC is not required to filter their water due to the fact that it is above the federal standards for drinking water. This poses a problem... Those of the Jewish faith only eat things that are kosher. These tiny shrimp are categorized as crustaceans, which puts them under the label of un-kosher. From this article, it seems that some of the people who are a part of the Jewish faith are not happy based on this quote:

"In a 2004 article in The Jewish Press, Rabbi David Berger, a professor of history at the City University Graduate Center, said, "The notion that God would have forbidden something that no one could know about for thousands of years, thus causing wholesale, unavoidable violation of the Torah, offends our deepest instincts about the character of both the Law and its Author."

This article may seem superficial at first glance, but if you dig deeper,through my own interpretation, the rights of some people may be being violated. What to do? Should the NYC water department take ALL people of their city into account? I think so!

The Mosque Hype!

I was recently bored out of my mind and on Facebook like normal, when a friend's Facebook status came across my newsfeed.

"Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Bomber, was responsible for the deadliest terrorist attack within the US prior to 9/11. He was a Navy Veteran and a Catholic. What are the implications of applying the same 'reasoning' that many are applying to Islam due to the demographics of the 9/11 terrorists?"

This status instantly peeked my interest because I had never thought about this in the way that she has stated. The only things that I had been hearing was people's opinions on the mosque, and that there should not be a mosque built near Ground Zero based on the circumstances of the horrific events of 9/11. I could definitely see where people could be coming from with these opinions; however, seeing my friend's status made me think about how people have treated other people of different religions and cultures since the attacks.
The First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States expresses that everyone has Freedom of Religion. Who is to say that a person of Islamic faith cannot practice their religion wherever they so choose? No one can! Also, going along with this fact, not all people are bad. Even though some of the terrorists who bombed and flew into the World Trade Center were Muslims, not all Muslims are terrorists.
This being said, everyone is NOT perfect! Just because we were raised in America does not imply that we are all good. Catholics, Buddhists, and Muslims, etc. alike all have their faults, no matter what religion. Timothy McVeigh was a person who was a domestic terrorist. He killed many innocent people by committing the Oklahoma City Bombings. Although I know very little about the attacks that he committed, I do know that killing is killing, and it is not always or ever connected to a religion. It is most often the person's own sick mind that leads them to do these horrific crimes. There is much bias coming from the news stations and other media. I feel that people should take into account the horror of these attacks, and realize there is no difference in attacks, besides the difference of domestic and international terrorist attacks. Also, I hope that you take from this that there should not be judgment placed on the innocent Muslim people... They are only trying to practice their religion. I feel that there was nothing intentional in the desired placement of the mosque. I think that people are taking this mosque debate way too far, and I feel that it may have been overexaggerated more than necessary. I feel that the "surveillance" on the media's part was poor, and the newsworthiness shouldn't have been one of the higher topics on the list, but this is only my opinion.

(I hope this peeks some interest of everyone else and that you can realize what I realized about the similarities in attacks on the US.)

First Blog!

Hi Everyone!
This is my first post for Mass Media& Politics! I am looking forward to blogging for this class and learning about everything that is going on around us! I am still trying to figure out the whole Twitter thing and blogging as well, so I hope to figure out everything really soon. My blogs will be posted on Twitter as soon as I figure out how! Thanks for being patient!
Katie Williams