The humorous I choose was the most recent Tina Fey impersonation of the Sarah Palin interview with Katie Couric on Saturday Night Live. SNL has done a great job in the past representing and telling stories that the media really can't. Tina Fey's impression of Sarah Palin is perfect, usually SNL does a good job but this is by far its best impersonation yet. First they make fun of Palin for not having any understanding of what the Bush Doctrine is. Then continues straight on to make fun of her trip to the United Nations Tina Fey (Sarah Palin) saying that she McCain would get rid of the foreigners in the United Nations and give those jobs to hard working Americans. The biggest slam against Palin and the whole set up for the skit was making fun of her stumbling on foreign policy in Palins real interview with Katie Couric. The SNL version of Couric ask Palin to one more time clarify her answer on why she has foreign policy experience. Tina Fey (Sarah Palin) stumbles around giving ridiculous answers and spewing out random empty campaign rhetoric. For example "Reigning in spending" or "health care reform is necessary" or "its all about job creation for Americans". But writing about this SNL skit doesn't do it justice you have to see it to fully understand it. Here is the link below
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/couric-palin-open/704042/
Monday, September 29, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Op-Ed
David Frick
The Failures of the Bush Doctrine
The Bush Doctrine in simplest terms is the assertion that the United States has the right to launch a preemptive strike against any nation or group deemed hostile or a threat its national security. As Bush so delicately put it, “you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Really?
The biggest problem with the Bush Doctrine is its unilateral and illogical nature. It lacks both meaning and boundaries. Nearly any country could be deemed to violate the Bush Doctrine anytime it acts in competition with the U.S. How does a country know when it is about to threaten the U.S? When France sells military arms to Venezuela, should the U.S. invade France or Venezuela or both? When China revokes most of the political rights of citizens of Hong Kong, should the U.S. invade China? When Russia opposes letting Poland join NATO, should we invade Russia? Should the U.S. invade when the President of South Africa refuses to acknowledge HIV/AIDS as a viral disease and acts in a manner that risks the health of not just his country, but also the least stable collection of undemocratic counties in the world? When terrorists use Pakistan as a safe haven from which to attack Afghanistan, should we invade Pakistan? When Saudi Arabia raises oil prices and threatens our economy and limits the political and religious freedom of its citizens, should the U.S. invade?
The clear-cut line Bush drew in the sand with the Bush Doctrine eliminates any discussion not only between the U.S. and its allies, but also between the U.S. and its enemies. Allies that might disagree only with a couple issues could potentially be treated as terrorists. The ultimate goals of peace and stability are difficult to achieve, but impossible to achieve when attempted by force. The Cold War with the Soviet Union demonstrated that there can be continued fierce disagreement on almost every issue without requiring war for the U.S. to enjoy peace and prosperity in most years.
The idea of a preemptive strike is frightening, particularly when we discover, as we have in Bosnia and Iraq, that after the first “feel good” emotional boost from killing and overthrowing a few bad guys, the resulting situation is less stable with no ability to leave. After we have deposed the autocrats, the people who fill the political vacuum are even more vicious enemies of the U.S. At this point, they define the U.S. not winning as the U.S. losing. This dangerous mentality allows the U.S. to become its own worst enemy and to fall easily into too many wars, amplifying instability throughout the world.
Before the invasion of Iraq, the Middle East, excluding Israel and Palestine, was a relatively stable region. Although Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator who killed his own people, he had control of his country. Al-Qaeda was nowhere to be found. Then, the U.S. invaded Iraq using the newly-conceived and never-debated Bush Doctrine as the rationale. The occupation of Iraq has created extreme instability in the Middle East, raising anti-American sentiment, and allowing Al-Qaeda to thrive.
The cost of the war is staggering for the U.S. government which is already deeply in debt. The total cost of the war, according to CBS News this summer, was $648 billion and is running several billion dollars each month, assuming that the government is reporting all of the relevant costs. By far America’s most precious resource is its troops, but the Bush Doctrine has thrown the volunteer army into a hasty war and occupation in Iraq that has claimed the lives of over 4,171 soldiers. Is this worth it? Ask yourself; what has America gained from the invasion of Iraq?
It is interesting to note that America chose Iraq over other dangerous countries like North Korea, Iran, and Syria. North Korea is a country ruled by a dictator, Kim Jong iI, who has allowed his country to starve itself while focusing on its military and nuclear capabilities. Across the world in Africa, Zimbabwe is suffering under President Mugabe who won yet another fraudulent election for president. Clearly democracy was threatened, yet the Bush administration did little to nothing to help change these situations. Following the Bush Doctrine’s logic, North Korea, which has never been a democracy, should be invaded. Does Congress or the American public believe that we would be better off if we invaded North Korea? Of course not. Has Congress approved the Bush Doctrine or simply been forced to cope with its consequences?
Ironically, the domestic handmaiden of the Bush Doctrine is the equally ill-conceived Patriot Act. This act “protects” our democracy by picking and choosing who has which civil liberties, authorizing torture and legitimizing unwarranted levels of domestic surveillance. If another country adopted the Patriot Act, one could argue that under the Bush Doctrine, the U.S. would be at least justified and probably obligated to invade them at once!
If the purpose of the Bush Doctrine is to keep the U.S. safe from evil and spread democracy, then it should be repudiated immediately for the simple reason that it has not and will never work. Great goals do not keep rash actions from becoming folly. The enemies of the U.S. and democracy know that the Bush Doctrine can only accelerate the squandering of America power, prosperity and democracy.
Authors note- My biggest concern is that paragraph about the Patriot Act. Is it really relevant to the Bush Doctrine which was the point of the editorial. Also just wordiness and grammar issues.
The Failures of the Bush Doctrine
The Bush Doctrine in simplest terms is the assertion that the United States has the right to launch a preemptive strike against any nation or group deemed hostile or a threat its national security. As Bush so delicately put it, “you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Really?
The biggest problem with the Bush Doctrine is its unilateral and illogical nature. It lacks both meaning and boundaries. Nearly any country could be deemed to violate the Bush Doctrine anytime it acts in competition with the U.S. How does a country know when it is about to threaten the U.S? When France sells military arms to Venezuela, should the U.S. invade France or Venezuela or both? When China revokes most of the political rights of citizens of Hong Kong, should the U.S. invade China? When Russia opposes letting Poland join NATO, should we invade Russia? Should the U.S. invade when the President of South Africa refuses to acknowledge HIV/AIDS as a viral disease and acts in a manner that risks the health of not just his country, but also the least stable collection of undemocratic counties in the world? When terrorists use Pakistan as a safe haven from which to attack Afghanistan, should we invade Pakistan? When Saudi Arabia raises oil prices and threatens our economy and limits the political and religious freedom of its citizens, should the U.S. invade?
The clear-cut line Bush drew in the sand with the Bush Doctrine eliminates any discussion not only between the U.S. and its allies, but also between the U.S. and its enemies. Allies that might disagree only with a couple issues could potentially be treated as terrorists. The ultimate goals of peace and stability are difficult to achieve, but impossible to achieve when attempted by force. The Cold War with the Soviet Union demonstrated that there can be continued fierce disagreement on almost every issue without requiring war for the U.S. to enjoy peace and prosperity in most years.
The idea of a preemptive strike is frightening, particularly when we discover, as we have in Bosnia and Iraq, that after the first “feel good” emotional boost from killing and overthrowing a few bad guys, the resulting situation is less stable with no ability to leave. After we have deposed the autocrats, the people who fill the political vacuum are even more vicious enemies of the U.S. At this point, they define the U.S. not winning as the U.S. losing. This dangerous mentality allows the U.S. to become its own worst enemy and to fall easily into too many wars, amplifying instability throughout the world.
Before the invasion of Iraq, the Middle East, excluding Israel and Palestine, was a relatively stable region. Although Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator who killed his own people, he had control of his country. Al-Qaeda was nowhere to be found. Then, the U.S. invaded Iraq using the newly-conceived and never-debated Bush Doctrine as the rationale. The occupation of Iraq has created extreme instability in the Middle East, raising anti-American sentiment, and allowing Al-Qaeda to thrive.
The cost of the war is staggering for the U.S. government which is already deeply in debt. The total cost of the war, according to CBS News this summer, was $648 billion and is running several billion dollars each month, assuming that the government is reporting all of the relevant costs. By far America’s most precious resource is its troops, but the Bush Doctrine has thrown the volunteer army into a hasty war and occupation in Iraq that has claimed the lives of over 4,171 soldiers. Is this worth it? Ask yourself; what has America gained from the invasion of Iraq?
It is interesting to note that America chose Iraq over other dangerous countries like North Korea, Iran, and Syria. North Korea is a country ruled by a dictator, Kim Jong iI, who has allowed his country to starve itself while focusing on its military and nuclear capabilities. Across the world in Africa, Zimbabwe is suffering under President Mugabe who won yet another fraudulent election for president. Clearly democracy was threatened, yet the Bush administration did little to nothing to help change these situations. Following the Bush Doctrine’s logic, North Korea, which has never been a democracy, should be invaded. Does Congress or the American public believe that we would be better off if we invaded North Korea? Of course not. Has Congress approved the Bush Doctrine or simply been forced to cope with its consequences?
Ironically, the domestic handmaiden of the Bush Doctrine is the equally ill-conceived Patriot Act. This act “protects” our democracy by picking and choosing who has which civil liberties, authorizing torture and legitimizing unwarranted levels of domestic surveillance. If another country adopted the Patriot Act, one could argue that under the Bush Doctrine, the U.S. would be at least justified and probably obligated to invade them at once!
If the purpose of the Bush Doctrine is to keep the U.S. safe from evil and spread democracy, then it should be repudiated immediately for the simple reason that it has not and will never work. Great goals do not keep rash actions from becoming folly. The enemies of the U.S. and democracy know that the Bush Doctrine can only accelerate the squandering of America power, prosperity and democracy.
Authors note- My biggest concern is that paragraph about the Patriot Act. Is it really relevant to the Bush Doctrine which was the point of the editorial. Also just wordiness and grammar issues.
Monday, September 22, 2008
An Argument of Definition
The article I read was titled "A reality check on 'Change'". The authors main focus of the article was to point out how the candidates are using the word change. The author is clearly supporting Obama in this article, but that is not the point. The point is how Obama is and has been a real advocate for change. John McCain although a maverick of the Republican party can hardly be called a advocate of change from the Bush Administration. As the author pointed out McCain voted about 90% of the time with Bush, and he asked is that really change?
He also points out the attacks from Sarah Palin about Obamas few legislative laws during his time as a Senator, and making the point that talking about change doesn't necessarily bring it. The author brings up an interesting point about McCain. McCain has served in the Senate for 22 years and has authored fewer than half-dozen "major laws" (very similar to the amount of "major" legislation Obama has produced). The reason for so few laws in such a long amount of time in all fairness to McCain is because of his label as a 'Maverick' in the Republican party. It has been difficult for McCain to rally support for his legislation because even people in his own party don't always agree with him. The definition of change is definitely different between both campaigns, but it is up to America to decide which definition of change they agree with the most.
Also for my op-ed piece I will be writing to Time magazine. I decided to write to time because its a very mainstream, and very balanced magazine with a large nationwide audience. With my writing I want to reach out to as many people as possible.
He also points out the attacks from Sarah Palin about Obamas few legislative laws during his time as a Senator, and making the point that talking about change doesn't necessarily bring it. The author brings up an interesting point about McCain. McCain has served in the Senate for 22 years and has authored fewer than half-dozen "major laws" (very similar to the amount of "major" legislation Obama has produced). The reason for so few laws in such a long amount of time in all fairness to McCain is because of his label as a 'Maverick' in the Republican party. It has been difficult for McCain to rally support for his legislation because even people in his own party don't always agree with him. The definition of change is definitely different between both campaigns, but it is up to America to decide which definition of change they agree with the most.
Also for my op-ed piece I will be writing to Time magazine. I decided to write to time because its a very mainstream, and very balanced magazine with a large nationwide audience. With my writing I want to reach out to as many people as possible.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Argument of Fact
The article is "Going Green Eco-Buyer Beware" in Time magazine. This article was about how almost every business wants to be seen as an environmentally friendly, green company. Now whether they are or not is the point of this article. This article's main claim was that most environmentally friendly products put in the store were not truly environmentally friendly. The author cited many sources and studies done on the "eco-friendly" products that are now flooding stores across America. He also talked about why businesses would want to "go green" regardless of whether they truly are or not. The sales of organic products have increased from 10 billion in 2003 to 20 billion in 2007. That right there is plenty of reason for any company to campaign going green. As the author noted consumers must be aware of whether the "company is more interested in selling the earth than saving it".
Monday, September 15, 2008
My letter to the editor
Here is the link to the article I responded too.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do?ipcounter=1&cookieState=0&rand=0.2350743175000386&bhcp=1
Here is my letter to the editor
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do?ipcounter=1&cookieState=0&rand=0.2350743175000386&bhcp=1
Here is my letter to the editor
To the Editor of the Washington Post:
Dan Eggen’s September 15, 2008 editorial “Bush’s Overseas Policies Begin Resembling Obama’s” completely misses the major issue. It is no surprise that several of the foreign policies of Bush and Obama are similar. Both men are politicians who know that the fundamental role of the President is to keep America safe. The relevant point is to recognize the important differences in their policies.
Bush’s approach to foreign policy is profoundly different than Obama’s. Bush’s foreign policy is based on a belief that other countries are either with us or against us. If you are an “evildoer,” we will not enter a dialogue with you, but will make nonnegotiable demands and take unilateral actions. Bush’s foreign policy is based on so much arrogance and condescension that even when our allies agree with us, they try to distance themselves. Bush’s rush into Iraq, based on horrible intelligence, is a case in point. The Bush Doctrine really starts with the answer and then collects the facts that support that case. Bush’s intentions, of course, are still up for public debate.
Obama, on the other hand, realizes that foreign power is most effective when used indirectly. Public threats, coercion and unilateral actions play well in the first few news cycles at home, but they persuade both friend and foe that America is a bully. No one likes a bully. Obama is even willing to start a dialogue between the United States and hostile nations, how can you expect to come to an understanding without communication? Iraq was never a war Obama wanted to enter. To even suggest the Obama’s foreign policies are beginning to resemble Bush’s is ridiculous.
John McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time; to suddenly forget this overwhelming similarity is certainly misleading. Bush is one of the most unpopular Presidents in the history of America for a reason, and both candidates are trying to distance themselves from him. The author clearly understands this and selects facts to make it appear that Obama’s foreign policies are closer than McCain’s to the failed foreign policies of President Bush.
Dan Eggen’s defense of carefully selected portions of Obama’s foreign policy ideas that line up with the Bush administration’s recent changes in foreign policy misses the point. Foreign affairs is similar to community organizing, but on a global scale and with higher stakes. Reaching a consensus on the goals and methods to obtain these goals depends on the world view held by the key players. Most people would agree that Bush and Obama hold almost perfectly diametrically opposed world views. To suggest otherwise, as Dan Eggren’s title does, is to deliberately to mislead the public.
David Frick
Fort Worth, Texas
Monday, September 8, 2008
What issues matter for me this election
The issue that is probably the most important to me is Americas foreign policy. I'm not trying to pick a fight but, personally I believe that the Bush administration has done a terrible job with foreign policy. Afghanistan was and is still a completely justifiable war, Iraq on the other hand is not. I know its obviously too late to change the fact that we are there and have to finish the job, but it just been an enormous waste of time, energy, and most importantly people. The Bush administration also has done a terrible job working with allies and has alienated many of Americas friends. Also how they have done nothing to help the worsening situation in Africa. But enough of my complaining about current problems, I just hope whoever does win this election does a much better job with foreign policy.
Another important election issue is the energy crises. We all know America uses too much oil and is a big contributor to global warming. It's encouraging to see that both candidates are promising to make America switch to safer alternative fuels that are much less damaging towards the environment. Obama seems to be the more green candidate than John McCain, often promising to take further steps, and use slightly more creative means of achieving a greener America. John McCain still doesn't seem to want to give up on oil, he still wants to drill offshore (I know Obama wants to drill too) and keep oil a large part of Americas energy plan.
There are many more issues that i care about But these are the two that matter the most to me for this election.
Another important election issue is the energy crises. We all know America uses too much oil and is a big contributor to global warming. It's encouraging to see that both candidates are promising to make America switch to safer alternative fuels that are much less damaging towards the environment. Obama seems to be the more green candidate than John McCain, often promising to take further steps, and use slightly more creative means of achieving a greener America. John McCain still doesn't seem to want to give up on oil, he still wants to drill offshore (I know Obama wants to drill too) and keep oil a large part of Americas energy plan.
There are many more issues that i care about But these are the two that matter the most to me for this election.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Logos
Ever since John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his runningmate the media has done everything to destroy her credibility. The media is portraying Palin in a way the establishes her the wrong canidate for the job, the medias main aurguement stlye is logos. They are using logos by stating a long list of facts to hurt her credibility as a viable canidate. The facts make the media look credible while making Palin seem like a weak choice. Some of these facts are that Palin has only been governer of Alaska for about a year, and before that just a very small town mayor of 7,000. Palin also has never had to think about international affiars, health care, or social secruity in terms of the whole country. The media is also blasting Palin about things that have little or nothing to do with politics, like the pregnancy of her 17 year old daughter. I do believe that with all the articles and TV time spent trying to discreted Palin are a little overboard. She should be thouroghly questioned if she is going to be our next vice president, but the media is completely setting her up to fail. Most of my information came from msnbc.msn.com so i cannot credit this to just one article.
Monday, September 1, 2008
This picture is a great example of a pathos argument. This was a news article on msnbc.msn.com and it was titled "India's 'untouchables' last to be helped in floods". I could not believe that the government would actually implement the policy of saving everyone else in these flooded Indian regions before the caste of the 'untouchables'. Although the caste system has been a part of India for centuries, it is still hard to see a country value peoples lives differently. I can only assume that most peoples first reaction is that it must be horrible to be stuck on those rafts, but as i continued to read the article i realized that these people in the picture were not even the 'untouchable' class. The article continued to say that dozens of 'untouchable's' were killed and 1.2 million left homeless. The picture definitely tugs at peoples emotions, and makes most people feel sorry for the horrible situation that the flooding has brought to India. But the picture is only telling the story and both the picture and the article has no call to action or anyway for a person removed from the situation. One can only hope that the situation does not degrade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)