Well, I started this blog/project and then completely ignored it for a month - so typical for a spastic college student. BUT, finals are over and I have high hopes (as well as nothing to do until January 19th!)
I am currently reading coverage on the Northwest Airlines airplane that was landed unexpectedly after a supposed terrorist attack by a Nigerian engineering student, Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab.
The NY Times article, "Governments React After Terror Attempt on Airplane", reports on the government's hope to discover the inspiration for these attacks, as well as plans for heightened airport security. The article quotes Republican Representative Peter T. King of New York, member of the House Homeland Security Committee saying, "This was the real deal." Although Abdulmutallab claimed to be "directed" by Al Qaeda, officials are not sure this is true. An unidentified federal counterterrorism official said, "It's too early to say what his association is. At this point, it seems like he was acting alone, but we don't know for sure."
The article then focused on airport security and tried to explain exactly how Abdulmutallab got onto the plane. Abdulmutallab left Nigeria and landed in Amsterdam before continuing to Detroit. The article stated that, "Amsterdam has long been an airport of concern for American aviation security officials." The article concluded with plans for more extensive security, including a possible restriction of syringes pre-loaded with medicine and a new technology that can detect any sort of object underneath clothing, although these scanners are still being tested.
The report posted on FoxNews.com gave much of the same information regarding the event; however, the article conveyed a very different message. The article was titled, "Official: U.S. Knew for 2 Years Suspect Could Have Terror Ties," and began with, "An official briefed on the foiled attack on a Detroit airliner says the U.S. has known for at least two years that the suspect could have terrorist ties." The NY Times article made no mention of this possibility, or implied blame on the government.
26 December 2009
04 December 2009
The 'birther' Movement
In an interview with conservative radio host Rusty Humphries, Sarah Palin was asked whether she plans to make the "birther" conspiracy, the idea that President Barack Obama is not an United States citizen, an issue in any future campaigns. Palin said she did not plan to personally make it an issue, but also stated she believes it is still a question among many groups. She goes on, saying these assumptions are "fair game" and notes the similarities between this conspiracy and the "weird conspiracy theory freaky thing" that Trig is not her actual son.
Reporters quickly responded to Palin's comments. In an Opinion piece, Paul Thorton of the Los Angeles Times asks, "Is the fact that Palin uttered something so nutty really surprising?" He than indirectly calls Palin "small-minded". Thorton Paul. "Sarah Palin's 'birther' flirtation: least surprising news today." Los Angeles Times. 04 Dec. 2009.
The Huffington Post also reported on the story, but did not make any analysis. The article included most of the interview's transcript, as well as evidence from FactCheck.org that Obama is an United States citizen. They also included Palin's response, which she posted on her Facebook page after the interview. "Sarah Palin Goes 'Birther': Obama Birth Certificate 'A Fair Question'. The Huffington Post. 04 Dec. 2009.
In the Facebook post, Palin wrote that "at no point - not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States." Palin Sarah. "Stupid Conspiracies." Facebook. 03 Dec. 2009.
Reporters quickly responded to Palin's comments. In an Opinion piece, Paul Thorton of the Los Angeles Times asks, "Is the fact that Palin uttered something so nutty really surprising?" He than indirectly calls Palin "small-minded". Thorton Paul. "Sarah Palin's 'birther' flirtation: least surprising news today." Los Angeles Times. 04 Dec. 2009.
The Huffington Post also reported on the story, but did not make any analysis. The article included most of the interview's transcript, as well as evidence from FactCheck.org that Obama is an United States citizen. They also included Palin's response, which she posted on her Facebook page after the interview. "Sarah Palin Goes 'Birther': Obama Birth Certificate 'A Fair Question'. The Huffington Post. 04 Dec. 2009.
In the Facebook post, Palin wrote that "at no point - not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States." Palin Sarah. "Stupid Conspiracies." Facebook. 03 Dec. 2009.
Oh, Governor Palin
Sarah Palin's latest book has caused quite a bunch of buzz, and I have decided to use the book as an opportunity to try and understand this extremely controversial woman. I must admit, I really want to like her - I tend to always root for the lovable underdog. Although I will most likely take the book cover off while reading on the NYC subway (sorry Palin!), I'm looking forward to learning more about her.
I have this feeling that, despite her silly comments and complete lack of political finesse, I might relate to Palin on many levels. So far, after reading the first chapter, I already realize a small connection. I love all the names Palin gave her children! I know that doesn't mean anything politically, but I'm liking her already.
03 December 2009
"Warheads on Foreheads"
Yesterday, the New York Times published an update of the C.I.A. drone program in Pakistan. Although the United States will not officially comment on the existence of this program, there is evidence of its significance throughout the war.
Here's the lovely nut-graf:
"One of Washington’s worst-kept secrets, the drone program is quietly hailed by counterterrorism officials as a resounding success, eliminating key terrorists and throwing their operations into disarray. But despite close cooperation from Pakistani intelligence, the program has generated public anger in Pakistan, and some counterinsurgency experts wonder whether it does more harm than good." - Scott Shane. "C.I.A. Is Expanding Drone Assaults Inside Pakistan. New York Times. 03 Dec. 2009.
In the October 26th issue of the New Yorker, Jane Mayer detailed the reality of this seemingly unknown program. This was the first time I read about drones (yes, it is possible that I often exist only in the world of undergrads) and personally, I was shocked by the story. Let me be clear -- I was not shocked this program existed, for I understand that 'All's fair in love and...etc..blah blah' but, I was shocked that nobody else was talking much about the issue. I assumed that most liberals would feel strongly against these sort of attacks, especially those who were against the death-penalty, etc? (Although, now that I think about it, maybe those two are not easily comparable since one is a moral issue and the other involves national security.) Still, I assumed there would be more controversy. Especially with this fun little fact...
"More C.I.A. drone attacks have been conducted under President Obama than under President George W. Bush." - Shane.
Che interessante...
Here's the lovely nut-graf:
"One of Washington’s worst-kept secrets, the drone program is quietly hailed by counterterrorism officials as a resounding success, eliminating key terrorists and throwing their operations into disarray. But despite close cooperation from Pakistani intelligence, the program has generated public anger in Pakistan, and some counterinsurgency experts wonder whether it does more harm than good." - Scott Shane. "C.I.A. Is Expanding Drone Assaults Inside Pakistan. New York Times. 03 Dec. 2009.
In the October 26th issue of the New Yorker, Jane Mayer detailed the reality of this seemingly unknown program. This was the first time I read about drones (yes, it is possible that I often exist only in the world of undergrads) and personally, I was shocked by the story. Let me be clear -- I was not shocked this program existed, for I understand that 'All's fair in love and...etc..blah blah' but, I was shocked that nobody else was talking much about the issue. I assumed that most liberals would feel strongly against these sort of attacks, especially those who were against the death-penalty, etc? (Although, now that I think about it, maybe those two are not easily comparable since one is a moral issue and the other involves national security.) Still, I assumed there would be more controversy. Especially with this fun little fact...
"More C.I.A. drone attacks have been conducted under President Obama than under President George W. Bush." - Shane.
Che interessante...
And the final verdict is??
The Huffington Post analyzes the different voices in the latest Afghanistan withdrawal statement from the Obama administration. The statements made by various politicians seem to be confusing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/afghanistan-withdrawal-da_n_379502.html
For example:
"So it is not contradictory to set a date certain, yet to condition it on the reality that we confront at that time." - as quoted by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
If the government sets a date for withdrawal, they are implying the war will be over regardless of circumstances. If the government claims a withdrawal of troops depends on conditions in Afghanistan, then exactly how is Obama's claim making headline news? If the United States will continue sending troops and money, and continue fighting as long as needed to win the war, then it seems the main factor in withdrawal is success, not time. And if this is the case, how is this policy different from what was already happening (assuming that the administration was always attempting to win the war in a timely manner)?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/afghanistan-withdrawal-da_n_379502.html
For example:
"So it is not contradictory to set a date certain, yet to condition it on the reality that we confront at that time." - as quoted by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
If the government sets a date for withdrawal, they are implying the war will be over regardless of circumstances. If the government claims a withdrawal of troops depends on conditions in Afghanistan, then exactly how is Obama's claim making headline news? If the United States will continue sending troops and money, and continue fighting as long as needed to win the war, then it seems the main factor in withdrawal is success, not time. And if this is the case, how is this policy different from what was already happening (assuming that the administration was always attempting to win the war in a timely manner)?
The Mission
Here's the deal - I am a born and raised country girl from a small town called Justin, Texas. I am also a third-year journalism student at New York University. As far as American politics are concerned, I have found myself in the center of one of the most conservative states, and then one of the most liberal cities in the country. Now I am left with a major question: where the heck do I fit in? In NYC I am always too conservative for most, while back home I am typically the small-town-girl who's parents sadly lost her to those 'crazy Yankee liberals'.
So this is what this blog is all about - my attempt to understand my own political thoughts and opinions. In true (hypothetical) journalistic style, I plan on going into this project as a completely blank slate. I hope to be open to persuasion by any and every political party, maybe even those that are less traditional. I will do my best to keep myself out of the stories (this entry is obviously an exception, since I needed to explain this crazy plan), and let the information speak for itself. I expect that I will blog a 'journal' type comment as a reaction to what I have learned, but only to show my individual interpretation. Obviously I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything - shoot, I don't even know what I think yet!
I want this blog to be a forum for both liberal and conservative thoughts, without analysis that could taint or judge one side's opinion. This seems like the most fair, unbiased way for me to approach this self-discovery. Ideally, I should be able to walk away from this crazy endeavour confidently -- or at the very least, extremely well informed. Wish me luck.
Sidenote: Any comments, thoughts, opinions -- criticisms even? -- are more than welcome. Any books, websites, TV programs, twitters, etc. that you believe I would find useful or interesting is welcome!
So this is what this blog is all about - my attempt to understand my own political thoughts and opinions. In true (hypothetical) journalistic style, I plan on going into this project as a completely blank slate. I hope to be open to persuasion by any and every political party, maybe even those that are less traditional. I will do my best to keep myself out of the stories (this entry is obviously an exception, since I needed to explain this crazy plan), and let the information speak for itself. I expect that I will blog a 'journal' type comment as a reaction to what I have learned, but only to show my individual interpretation. Obviously I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything - shoot, I don't even know what I think yet!
I want this blog to be a forum for both liberal and conservative thoughts, without analysis that could taint or judge one side's opinion. This seems like the most fair, unbiased way for me to approach this self-discovery. Ideally, I should be able to walk away from this crazy endeavour confidently -- or at the very least, extremely well informed. Wish me luck.
Sidenote: Any comments, thoughts, opinions -- criticisms even? -- are more than welcome. Any books, websites, TV programs, twitters, etc. that you believe I would find useful or interesting is welcome!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
