Seal- A Change is Gonna Come

The song "A Change is Gonna Come" has two political messages.  They are different in some respects and they have a 44 year  difference between them.  The original version of this song was by Sam Cooke.  His message with this song was about racism in the 1960s and his hope that a change would come. The lyrics say what every black American probably felt at the time. Life was hard, harder than it should have been, but you had to keep moving on and making it through. It also expresses the hardships that came with a black man merely going to the movies.

I also think that the cover version of this song by Seal has a political one.  Seal released his album "Soul" on October 31, 2008, just days before Barack Obama was elected as President of the United States.  This song was also the first track on the album.  Having this song released at that time in history says a lot about what people wanted and what they were looking for in the world.  The American people wanted change, and Barack Obama ran is entire campaign on "change".  And this song is representative of two eras of change in American history.

Fortunate Son- Creedence Clearwater Revival

When thinking about the music-politics blog assignment, the first songs that came to my mind were by Creedence Clearwater Revival.  I am not sure how many of you have listened to CCR, but for me, they are a favorite.  Most of the time I listen to them just for the beat of the music, but if you listen to the lyrics, you can hear clear political messages, mostly about soldiers in Vietnam and speaking out against the war.  The one that always sort of screams "POLITICAL" to me is Fortunate Son.




(Click HERE to read the lyrics.)

This song is speaking out agianst the Vietnam War and for the men that were drafted to go fight.  The song is about how the "fortunate" men have everything they need and want and are the sons of America, but they don't have to go and fight.  It is the men that are less fortunate that are drafted to fight in a war they possibly don't believe in.  Also, iti is saying that the government asks for more and more from the less fortunate and nothing from the rich.

Pelosi is in afterall, but at what expense?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40357872/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

As a follow up to my previous post, Pelosi has retained her leadership with House Democrats. Is this a good thing? I am a thinking maybe not.  As I stated before, I am not a fan of Pelosi. She gives Democrats everywhere a bad reputation for being extremely liberal and is making the term "liberal" seem bad.

According to the article above from MSNBC, Pelosi's new goal in the new Congress will be to "Block Obama Deals with GOP". Apparently Democrats are afraid that our President will try to hard to please the majority and make deals that don't follow Democratic ideals.  But from what I can tell from this article, it just seems like they want to make more of a mess in American politics.  Our government has enough problems as it is so why do people keep trying to shake it up?

Pelosi Out?

Nancy Pelosi is the kind of person you either love or hate. Clearly, Republicans have expressed the not so positive feelings toward her over the past couple of years. But now that the Democrats are no longer the majority, what will feelings toward her look like? Whether they are good or bad, it seems like everyone is ready for a change in direction for the mew minority party. And according to this Fox News article, Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina will be challenging Nancy Pelosi for House Minority leader and other Democrats have pledged to not support her running.

Now, As you probably have been able to tell from previous posts, I am definitely not conservative. And I am a proud member of the Democratic Party. However, this does not mean that I am going to love everything about it.  For instance, I am not a huge fan of Pelosi.  She never seemed to be a leader for Democratic Party, merely a figure head that got a lot of press. No matter what news source I got information from, she didn't instill the feeling that she was doing what the people wanted or what the other Democrats wanted, but what she wanted.  Therefore I am of the belief that when it comes time for Democrats to elect their leader, they should definitely go in a new direction.  The Democratic Party suffered a huge blow this election and I believe Pelosi is part of the reason. Her appearance of not being a team player created a lot of enemies for her and if the Democrats want to regain the trust of the people, they will need to change their course.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/15/north-carolina-congressman-confirms-hell-challenge-pelosi-hosue-democratic/?

AND JUST TO PROVE MY POINT....

This was posted under Dr. DeWitt's discussion board so many of you will have already seen this. But since it proves my point from my previous blog, I thought I would add it.

Christine O'Donnell makes the Tea Party look silly

Christine O'Donnell has yet again made it into the news because of things she has said in the past.  This time, the media is talking about remarks made at a debate in 2006 that China is planning to take over the United States.  According to the Associated Press, Christine O'Donnell stated in the primary debate that she was privy to 'classified information" that indicated China had a plan. How ridiculous is this? If it was confidential she shouldn't have said this in the first place which makes me believe it is more nonsense concocted by a attention hungary politician.

So my question is this: If the Tea Party wants to be taken seriously by other parties and groups, why are they backing a candidate who has such an extensive past of saying silly things?



Eleanor Clift of Newsweek was on MSNBC news yesterday and she said that O'Donnell is good for the Teas Party because she seems like a ordinary person to people that watch her and makes people think the Tea Party is made up of ordinary people instead of super rich people.

So to be seen as a billionaire movement or a ridiculous, senseless movement by the people?  I think the Tea Party has made the wrong choice.

The So-Called "Fair and Balanced" News Source

I think we all have accepted that Fox News is a very conservative news channel.  If anyone sees an opportunity to rag on Democrats or anyone that seems the least bit liberal, they will take it.  Over the weekend I saw a prime example of this on a video of Sean Hannity's talk show.  The segment is called "Media Mash" and its focus is to show examples of the "mainstream media's liberal bias".  This particular segment criticizes several news channels for "attacking" Christine O'Donnell as not being a good candidate to replace Joe Biden in Delaware.


Take a look:





The first clip is from NBC's Today Show, the second is George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America, and the third clip is from Morning Joe on MSNBC and these are what Hannity is using as evidence of the "mainstream media" picking up talking points and attacking a political candidate.  However, if you break these three clips down, Hannity's arguement starts to decay.  The main problem with these clips is that they are really just clips of whole stories. For people that don't watch the other channels or missed interviews of O'Donnell, there is no way to realize that she isn't completely being attacked in the way Hannity suggests.  And before you even look them up, the clips themselves speak to the same thing.  The first clip from The Today Show seems to simply be reporting what Democrats have said about Christine O'Donnell and not the media attacking her.  The second clip of George Stephanopoulos is really just a reporter wanting to know what O'Donnell herself thought about what Carl Rove said about her.  I do not see in either of these clips a candidate being attacked....only responsible reporting and answers being sought out.


 **Watch the GMA interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpZ5JZD0Y_Y


I couldn't find the exact clip from Morning Joe that Hannity used, however I did find another clip of Morning Joe where the hosts and contributors are discussing O'Donnell.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

While this clip does present some negative discussion of O'Donnell's character by Joe Scarborough and the other hosts of "Morning Joe", it is not an unfair discussion.  Also, Pat Buchanan also provides a different perspective which makes the overall discussion less one-sided.  


My overall point is that the only one that seems to be mudslinging is Sean Hannity and he uses against people that are merely providing different point of view or seeking responses to legitimate questions.  I fully accept that there are vicious attacks against Christine O'Donnell and that there can be bias in media, but Sean Hannity only bothered to show that ones that prove his own bias.

AZ Governor's Trouble with Public Speaking

Last night, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona got a little tongue-tied during her opening statement in a debate against her opponent, Democrat Terry Goddard.  If that's not bad enough, Brewer also stumbled when asked about statements she had previously made regarding beheadings in the Arizona desert.  When I first read about this, I expected to hear reporters giving detailed information about how bad a blunder this was or how its not a big deal, depending on the angle the news channel wanted to provide.  But to my surprise, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC seem to all agree that this could have happened to anyone.  Journalists have also been sympathizing with Brewer because they have all lost their train of thought at some point or another.  And you have to admit, regardless of whether you agree with Brewer's policies or not, it is painful to watch.  

 

 So will this hurt Brewer's chances in the election? Most news outlets are saying it won't because it is still early and she plenty of time before November to recover. And so far, the media thinks she is doing this the right way.  She is laughing it off and moving forward.

But my question is this: How does a politician let this happen? The opening statement of a debate should be the easiest part to get through and would be something that is practiced over and over again. There wasn't any pressure for her to give a quick answer and she probably had talking points in front of her, so while I feel bad for her and believe it could have happened to anyone, I can't help but think that she is not just "anyone".  She is a politician whose job involves a great deal of public speaking and if I were a Republican citizen of Arizona, I would not have a great deal of confidence in my candidate.

Political Ads being blocked by Facebook...Seriously?

According to an article in The Huffington Post, Facebook has banned ads promoting the decriminalization of marijuana because it contained a picture of the marijuana plant.  Now, I am not saying that I am for or against legalizing marijuana.  However, I think it is strange that a company that makes its money from people socializing and being able to communicate on issues and interests is preventing such issues from being advertised.  The group that placed the ad, Just Say Now, is promoting an issue that will be on the California ballot in this year's election, making it something that voters should be informed about. How else can an issue advertise if they cannot show what they are promoting?

Facebook states that it is considered a smoking product which is banned in their ad rules, however those same rules do not classify pot as a smoking product.. According to the Facebook Help Center, "Facebook does not allow advertisements promoting tobacco products.Tobacco or tobacco-related products include cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, tobacco pipes, hookahs or hookah lounges, rolling papers, vaporized tobacco delivery devices, or electronic cigarettes." Marijuana is not stated anywhere in their ad rules.

I understand that Facebook wants to keep ads clean and prevent misleading information, but the legalization of marijuana is a topic that most Facebook users are interested in and often comes up in today's political system. So why is it not being treated like one?

To read the full article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/facebook-blocks-ads-for-p_n_692295.html

Something to keep in mind....

“Every truth has two sides; it is as well to look at both, before we commit ourselves to either”- Aesop

This quote should be memorized by every person, especially those studying politics because it is important to always look at the big picture.  Too often, people hear stories on the news or read about them in newspapers and will automatically assume that whatever the broadcaster or journalist states is exactly what is happening.  This is not only unfair to the people involved in the story, but also to the people reading or watching the news.  It closes people off from learning what is really happening and being able to be open minded about various issues. It is my hope that while writing this blog, I will portray both sides of important issues so that we all can understand our political system more clearly.