Media influences presidential election

Though I wrote about this 2 years ago on my other blog (the posting will be shared below), I can't help but feel deja-vu; sadly.

In last night's Fox News debate, candidates were given the following opportunities to speak:
Romney– 16
Perry– 11
Bachmann– 9
Huntsman– 9
... Santorum– 9
Gingritch– 7
Cain– 7
Paul– 6
Johnson– 5

For Ron Paul, this was a whole seven minutes

Well that's a bit of an improvement from 2008's MSNBC debate, where Paul spoke only 6 minutes and 31 seconds

Here's my posting from January 24, 2008 from my previous blog:

Proof the Media has picked your President

I can barely express how truly disappointed I am in the ignorance of the American people and the huge corruption of the news in this presidential election. Call me naive, but I also wasn't old enough to vote until Bush's second term.

First- I watched the MSNBC debates tonight. Censorship is brutal- I won't deny my acclaim for Dr. Ron Paul. But when his total time speaking is 6 minutes and 31 seconds, by far the least- the second least amount belonging to Mike Huckabee at 12 minutes, how can you justify feeding the Romneybot 21 minutes of face time? Sure I can bitch and moan till the cows come home about the blatant censorship of Dr. Paul and things probably won't change...

But, seriously Mitt Romney is the winner? He had the most time talking tonight and from the looks of it he also had a prompter. When asked if he would respond the same way Reagan did... a whisper is loud and clear "he raised taxes" and Romney starts "What by raising taxes?". Sure give me the bullshit answer to this like a good media pawn.

Who said it? Cameras don't have mics. In fact only the moderators and the candidates had mics. MSNBC is going to blame Russert, but did he need to whisper that in order to get a relevant answer from Mitt? If Mitt is a great economic candidate he would know that raising taxes is what Reagan did right? Since he name drops RR frequently enough would he in fact need Russert to add "he raised taxes" to the question? Doubt it. What's more disturbing is that along with his "help" and his 20% of the show air-time, the debate winner er I mean owner is...

Oh that's right- Mitt Romney. He purchased the media empire "Clear Channel Communications" in November of 2006. Those that say he is a good businessman are certainly correct. Clear Channel is an umbrella company consisting of 1200 radio stations, various billboard sites, newspapers and local cable channels like Fox and ABC.

So the news we are getting is from a station that's owned by presidential candidate Mitt Romney- I guess we have our very own explanation for censorship. So if you want to welcome today's soft Republicans in to change the ways of President Bush- with the exception of Ron Paul you are welcoming full control of your lives, even what you watch on TV.

*Another link to Romney's first-hand connection to Clear Channel has been posted, and as of January 11th Bain Capital, Mitt's company, has gotten FCC approval for the buyout- from the Huffington Post.

Conspiracies aside, I am just not certain I understand why the media whose sole purpose is to inform the public of the news instead tries to influence the outcome of an election - in term creating "news."

Oh and for you "journalists" out there, news is defined as follows:

1)a report of recent events
- previously unknown information
- something having a specified influence or effect
2) material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast
- matter that is newsworthy


Same gripe, different year.

Oh debate season...

Prior to our previous election, I did a similar thing on my old blog - I gave my initial reactions to the GOP candidates...removing thought, previous biases, etc - only listening/watching and relying on previous knowledge (yes, knowledge not a media-watered-down assumption). Awhile back I read the book "Blink" and while I won't go into detail about what it entails, let's just say, it references "gut reaction" to things, proving that usually what first comes to mind about any given thing, is generally correct.

Seeing as how I have now watched two GOP debates, I will simply go over what my initial reaction was to each candidate - though I can't really do it for Ron Paul and Mitt Romney as I have obviously seen them debate before and know of them.

Because both debates seemed to focus a lot of attention on Romney and Rick Perry, I will start with Rick Perry.

Perry - first stating the obvious, he evoked another coming of Bush. Being a Texan and even having the look of one, I felt oddly as though I was listening to President Bush. Don't get me wrong, I preferred this country under Bush than under Obama, but Bush wasn't exactly the pick of the litter. Another thing about Perry is his air of smugness. The smirks and giggles while others rebuttle him, is pretty annoying. The state of this country is no joke. Additionally, when listening to him I didn't feel like there was an actual answer. Kind of like Captain Hindsight from South Park he stated the obvious and what went wrong but I didn't hear a solution or plan from him. I also don't trust him. He has a sense of evangelical idealism mixed with neo-conservative BS. Not to mention, he reportedly lied about his "$5,000 donation" from Merck, which turned out to be $28,000.

And next, sadly, yet another woman who seemingly adds to the impossibility of women being elected to president...Bachmann

Bachmann - where to begin...I get the same anxious feeling looking at her that I get from Pelosi. Anyone who finds time/money for plastic surgery while in a position of power, has some egotistical sense of self. I am not against women keeping up their looks - but come on, the blatently obvious pinched skin is frightening and WASP-like. Also, this isn't a school yard. We don't need every little remark to be an attack on another candidate. Again, our country is in dire need of help - rather than attack Perry for your own political gain, TELL US WHAT YOU WILL DO! Smoke and mirrors and plastic surgery. I would rather Palin.

Rick Santorum - not sure what else there is to say. Googling his name says it all (though to be fair I wasn't aware of the santorum search result thing until after). My first reaction was oh look at the smug, overly confident career politician. He didn't speak much but when he did, he and Bachmann did the whole resume thing. I cannot stand hearing, "Well when I..." as though some political-bureacrat accomplishment means anything to me. I am a middle class American, I pay more taxes than the rich and here I sit listening to how wonderful he was when he was some BS appointment...really, anyone with a deep wallet can be a politician and anyone can claim to have done something - what will you do. Suffice to say, I am not a fan, though I find his internet presence hilarious.

Bill Huntsman - thankfully he was part of the debate otherwise I don't know when else I would have gotten up to eat/go to the bathroom/etc. What does he stand for? Who is he? Why is he even part of this? I would rather listen to alien-abducted Dennis Kucinich. But seriously, the stern, insignificance he brought to the table screamed "boring version of Huckabee" - some uber religious idiot.

Okay time for some good...

Herman Cain - I like him - his personality anyway. Though liking a potential candidate's personality is no reason to elect them president. But, I will say I really like that he is not a politician. Our founding fathers and historical philosophers never intended our country to be run by career politicians. Well, Plato referred to them (though in different terms) as bankers - as we know half of them are. How can people with so much money understand how to run a country filled with people so different then themselves? Sorry for the tangent, but that is my Pro for Cain - his non-politician, won't-bail-out-the-banks attitude.

Newt Gingrich - He was the most intelligent person on the stage for both debates. I don't know how I feel about him as a policy-maker and a president, but I feel as though he should have a place in the economic side of things. Is he the man I want to hear address the country in a time of crisis? Probably not, he is almost too logical to be sincere. I like his ideas and think he is a smart man, but not a president.

Okay, so I will briefly talk Mitt and Ron Paul...

My biggest issue with Mitt is my fear of putting a Paulson-type in charge. Also, his salt and pepper hair reminds me of Nixon. But, I do think he is a smart businessman - unfortunately, hearing about his multi-million dollar upgrades on his mansions makes me like him less. I want a working man's president.

Ron Paul - I was almost embarassed for the state of Florida during the CNN debate. He spoke the truth, particularly when saying that the entire Muslim population isn't to blame for 9/11 - BOOing that? Really? Well, Tampa is the same city that the jurors for Casey Anthony came from (sorry, Clearwater - a whole 10 minutes away from Tampa) so I think it's safe to say that the intelligence level is a little lower.

I am a Ron Paul fan - I know many doubt him but that's because even after all the financial tragedy in the USA, we still seek to hear what we want to hear rather than the truth. The truth hurts, Paul gives it. I also like that he gave 100k back to the treasury of unspent money.

Alright...back to work, just wanted to share my own impressions.

How about I stick you on my bumper?

You know what really, I mean really drives me nuts? People who put their stance on abortion on their car via bumper sticker. I know, bumper stickers are used as a form of expression - whether it be political or religious or to make sure the people behind you know you're kid isn't the biggest idiot in the school. But, when it comes to abortion, what is the purpose?

Think about it. Abortion is the taboo subject for politicians to make a statement about - mostly because it's not grey enough. People in America are either pro-life or pro-choice. period.

In fact, people are typically extremely passionately pro-either, never luke warm on the topic. You either think women have the right to choose or that every heartbeat is of equal importance. So, why put it on your bumper?

In fact, it seems almost insanely idiotic to put a pink sticker on your bumper that detests pro-choice. For one, your bumper stick is NEVER, I mean NEVER going to be that one deciding factor that changes someone to switch from their stance on abortion to yours. It just isn't.

Second, you are going to piss someone/multiple people off. Because people have such strong feelings on the subject, obviously, as with debates on the topic, the view opposite of theirs gets them extremely moody. So, unless you seek to inspire road rage or perhaps hope to have a teenage girl post-abortion kick your bumper, it seems there is no utility in displaying it.

Third, it's tacky. It just is. Conception/pregnancy are private, personal topics. You don't need to make some public affirmation saying you approve or disapprove about it. No one knocks on your bedroom door while your mid-coitus to voice their opinion about it...because it's private and done in the privacy of your own home...just as your beliefs about it should be kept.

In sum, it's dumb. Declare your redneck heritage, your disdain for the president or your breed of dog via bumper sticker, but don't mess with something so sensitive and private - it doesn't do good for ANYONE.

Besides, I figure half the people with these bumper stickers are evangelical Christians. The same ones who preach pro-life because of their belief in each human life having equal value. Those same people are the ones who have made many of the decisions to go to war. Soldiers' lives don't count? No, they do. Hypocrisy and idiocracy don't bode well together.

Careers for the Forever Young

It recently occurred to me that the positions that we entrust the most professional, educated adults to hold are the same positions that mimic childhood.
Such a thought first came to me when listening to a friend talk about his experience in a law firm. This friend’s story involved matrimonial law and a client’s soon to be ex who was basically prank-calling the office and sending “funny” mail that can be best understood by picturing a toddler throwing a temper tantrum because he was refused a cookie before dinner.
I pictured the court room between the client and the opposing party, imagining the judge as a parent at a dinner table or wearing stripes to referee a youth soccer game. In this sense lawyers are re-enacting a feud based on who deserves more or less from the other person based on a long series of disagreements.
Each side might argue, “irreconcilable differences,” citing instances in the marriage in which each party failed to uphold something or another – varying case-to-case. Ultimately, a judge will award one side with material and priceless items, having to choose who deserves what.
Translate to youth speak, assuming the Judge is a parent, and the opposing parties are siblings (let’s call them Tommy and Suzie)

Lawyer 1 (Suzie): “Mommy, Tommy stole my iPod.”
Lawyer 2 (Tommy) : “But Mommy, Suzie wasn’t even using it and I don’t have an iPod.”
Suzie: “But it’s my iPod, it’s not my fault Tommy doesn’t have one.”
Judge (Mommy): “Tommy give Suzie back her iPod. It’s hers you can’t just take it from her without asking.”
Tommy: “Not fair…I needed the iPod so I could listen to music when I do my homework.”
Mommy: “Fine. Suzie, let Tommy use your iPod if you aren’t using it.”
Suzie: “No. It’s mine and I want to use it too.”
Mommy: “Okay give it here. From now on, you will have to split time using it – I will decide who gets it and when.”

Maybe not the best illustration but, you get the idea. Lawyers act as children, ultimately defending the decisions of their clients using various tactics to elicit guilt or prove worthiness to get what their client wants. A judge gets the unfortunate job of sitting and listening to two grown adults nitpick one another for irrelevant things in order to determine should have what based on which child or lawyer can argue better.
Funny thing is, to be a lawyer, one must spend absurd amounts of time and money for school, ultimately to become a professional arguer for one deciding authority. This child-like behavior is also present in careers which have even more impact, like in the senate.
Take New Jersey for example, our county senators have a power called senatorial courtesy. Such “courtesy” allows them to block a person to any appointed position in the same county. They can block this person from appointment for any reason without having to explain otherwise. Such behavior of disallowing a person an appointed position through this block is exercised often. Why? No one knows, because no explanation is required. In fact, apparently this behavior is done frequently through spite as one of my professors said, “Senators have elephant-like memories.”
It’s a playground hierarchy. You can refuse to allow a classmate to play with you and your friends just because he didn’t share his pudding with you. No one remembers why this classmate no longer plays with you, except for you, and maybe this classmate would be the best kicker on your kickball team but, who cares – he or she stole refused you the delight of sharing his tasty treat.
Applying such cattiness to such an important duty makes you wonder. I mean what’s more important, the good of the people or the unshared snack pack? It’s not like this classmate (or senator) did anything to negatively impact the well-being of the people, but still you don’t like him because of one meaningless incident and so, like Heidi Klum says, “You out.”