Monday, March 9, 2015

"The Power of We"

“America is what we make of it.”


Ironically, the task of coming up with a topic to write about for this blog post was very difficult for me, because I actually write HubPages, as a hobby. I spent considerable time thinking about what I wanted to write about, the nature of a blog, and what you all would like to read about. I decided to utilize the blog entry the way we are studying it, as the tool providing a voice for the American Public, it’s my voice. 
This past Saturday, I was at the gym and watching the news (because it was the only thing that would come in clearly on the treadmill TV), and I stumbled upon live pre-coverage of the speech that was to be given in Selma, Alabama by the President in an hour. They were making a big deal about it being a speech that he wrote himself, and had been working on for some time, so naturally I wanted to watch it too. The dedication speech he was giving was in honor of those who marched there peacefully for their voting rights, on that day 50 years ago in Selma, Alabama. The peaceful march turned into a brutal violation of civil and human rights, when the law met the marchers on the other end of the bridge with batons and boots, they beat those innocent people and the day is now known in history as bloody Sunday. I left the Gym and went home to watch the event with a bowl of popcorn and a notebook in hand. Well, not really the popcorn, but I did make an afternoon of it and I am glad I took the time to sit and really listen. 
I am starting this out with a small disclaimer about my lack of media attention. When I am not in school, or at work, I am doing home-work, or reading…novels. I do not watch any daily news programs regularly, as I find it does not add anything to my day, other than negative energies. Nearly all news is bad news, and the American media tends to give us the news, in forms that play to biases and emotion. We get the daily Telegraph at my house, so if I am inspired to seek further news coverage on anything, it would be due to a newspaper article that caught my eye. So in my reflection on the speech, if I have missed anything worthy of further comments due to previous news coverage, I do apologize.
After taking the podium, someone yells out something to the effect of: ‘we love you Mr. President’, which was a little lame and JFK if you ask me, but whatever. “Well, you know I love you back”. Is thus the remark that the President ends up starting his speech with, like a rockstar to his fans, if you will. If leadership qualities and personal appeal were enough to successfully produce change in this Country, we might be in a different place today. As it is though, inspiration is all we can really hope to gain out of a Presidential speech, and call me inspired. President Obama actually shed tears of humanitarian empathy during the speech of Congressman John Lewis remembering the day of the march in Selma. He then took the stage and after thanking Mr. Lewis for the introduction, told us all that John Lewis has long been his hero.
“What they did here will reverberate through the ages. Not because the change they won was pre-ordained, not because their victory was complete, but because they proved that nonviolent change is possible. That love and hope can conquer hate.” 
The President says he imagines that the young men and women marching on that day 50 years ago, could never have even believed the light at the end of the tunnel would look like it did, with a black President giving the speech. John Lewis had just explained to us that they walked two by two over the bridge on the SIDEWALK, not interfering with traffic or free-flowing commerce, and they were clubbed, and beaten, and some died. They were beaten but they stayed peaceful. President Obama speaks to the fact that the Selma marchers were not the first group to stand for that cause, and they wouldn't be the last, but stood they did. They succeeded. 
“As we commemorate their achievement, we are well served to remember that at the time of the marches, many in power condemned rather than praised them.”
The President reminds us that the government, and our leaders, were the ones calling the shots and back then, they were doing it wrong. Nonviolent protestors were referred to as horrible names, like communists or outside agitators, to inspire misunderstanding and fear from those who were content with the status quo. I believe that President Obama, is hoping to remind us that without a little shake-up, things never get done. I also believe that he is really pressing the point that a shake-up does not have to be a national threat, in fact, it could be collective movement towards becoming a better America. 
“What could more profoundly vindicate the idea of America then plain and humble people; unsung, the down-trodden, the dreamers not of high station, not born to wealth of privilege, not of one religious tradition, but many, coming together to shape their Country’s course?”
He goes on to talk about how shaking up the status quo is why we can be the proud people we are today; how the work of the American experiment in self-government is never over. He asks us to realize that in order to continue to be the Nation we are so proud of, we must be a strong enough people to be able to self-criticize and adapt. In order to better align ourselves with the goals and good of the people, we must be willing to build upon, and change it when necessary.
“…loving this country requires more than singing its praises, or avoiding uncomfortable truths. It requires the occasional disruption, the willingness to speak out for what is right, to shake up the status quo, that’s America! That’s what makes us unique. Thats what cements our reputation as a beacon of opportunity”
The President goes on to speak about how the Voting Rights Act was a direct response to the revolutionary spirit of the Civil Rights movement. It was that same spirit that led Woman to the poll, brought us to the moon, the best moves we have made as a people, for our people, have come of this spirit. He mentioned that in reality, it was the change that came from the peaceful movements for civil rights, that allowed the ‘south to rise again’, not by reverting to the past, but by ‘transcending it’. The actions of the generations of Americans before us who had to fight for civil rights, they gained them for us all and don't we owe them all quite a debt. 
He says that one day’s celebration is never enough, that our work is never done, and that action requires us to shed our cynicism. He rejects the notion that nothing has changed in America though, and yes, rights-violations may still be a battle, but  they are no longer sanctioned by law or customs. About Ferguson Missouri, and whether or not he thinks things have changed in America involving race? He ‘rejects’ that they have not. To say otherwise, would be irresponsible, it denies the progress we have made as an open and accepting society, he claims. He then also mentions however, that a graver mistake would be to act as though what is happening there, is an isolated incident, or that racism is banished. He presents these comments in a way that does not deflate the spirit, but provide it with a hunger for the solution. 

“We are capable of bearing a great burden, James Baldwin once wrote, once we discover that the burden is reality and arrive where reality is. There is nothing America can’t handle if we actually look squarely at the problem. And this is work for all Americans, not just some.” 
I loved that President Obama used this occasion to talk about the roots of a democracy-valuing society. He reminds Americans that in order to remain a land of the free, we must be a home of the brave. No, he never said anything like that, those are my words, but I think I was picking up what he was putting down. It is just an obvious situation to me, that one will always be less free by giving away their choices, to someone else. Even though taking the backseat is sometimes the more comfortable position to be in, you have willingly given away a part of your freedom, by letting someone else drive. This generation seems to want get by in their own lives and look away from the Country’s problems, and in my opinion, that is cowardly. I have just been wanting someone to point at American citizenry and say: “Oh, you don’t like it? Shut up,or put up. If you don’t at the very least vote, then what right do you have to say anything?” I didn't get that, but pretty close. 
“If we want to honor the courage of those who marched that day, then all of us are called to possess their moral imagination. All of us will need to feel, as they did, the fierce urgency of NOW. All of us need to recognize, as they did, that change depends on OUR actions, on our attitudes, the things we teach our children. And if we make such an effort, no matter how hard it may sometimes seem, laws can be passed and consciences can be stirred, and consensus can be built.” 
He points out that the ability to see things get done in favor of the public at large, is directly proportional to the amount of citizens that understand that it is their responsibility, to go out and get it. He really is trying to inflame the passions that people have for the issues they stand on, and then make them see the simplest solution: fulfilling the citizens end of the social contract of being an American and be apart of ‘we the people’. The back and forth, capital-prioritizing ‘politics as usual’, is simply the result of a lack of those willing to govern. When everyone who is being governed takes their hand off of the governing wheel, that steers our direction, they free up as much room as desired for people who want to be driving the ship. Those people are usually too focused on their placement on the wheel, that they lose touch with those riding the ship, that will feel direct effects of the steering. 
That is not to say that we don’t have citizens who aren’t trying to govern, but are still activists for change, because we do. We also have citizens, who aren't even interested in politics, who still uphold a responsibility to vote in all elections. However, the amount of people that don't vote, has far more of an impact on our state of being, because it is a negative one. Without the people demanding what is better for the people, the result is less will always get done. How can the candidates, or bills, that are most in favor of fair distribution of wealth and services, be voted in, without the people that would benefit from it, voting for it? 
“Of course, the work of our Democracy is not the work of the Congress alone, or the courts alone, or the President alone. If every new voter suppression law was struck down today, we would still have, here in America, one of the lowest voting rates among free peoples.”
Our constitution is based on the idea that, what is good for America will be shaped by what is good for the public, how can we do or know what is good for the public if they don't vote? I was thrilled that President Obama decided to bring some harsh facts to light, because he was able to hold a mirror to reality of the American citizen complacency problem. He reminded us that while we have this history of great personal change and accomplishment, we are currently letting ourselves down in a very big way. 
“Of course, the work of our Democracy is not the work of the Congress alone, or the courts alone, or the President alone. If every new voter suppression law was struck down today, we would still have, here in America, one of the lowest voting rates among free peoples.”
  Tough love. That is what the presidential address on the bridge was. Gone are the days when the “rights of corporations” were not more important than ALL AMERICANS being participant and even aware that their President is addressing them, I could literally only find this on one CNN channel. These are the days when the biggest networks would rather keep you ignorant on the issues anyway, and if they give up regularly scheduled programming to allow you to be addressed by your President, they lose the money they’d make on commercial breaks. So while this speech has truly inspired me, I had been inspired anyway, and I tuned in to see it. I just hope that maybe enough you-tube clips will get a viewing, for a second-time around, to reach those who really need the reminding.

“What’s our excuse today for not voting? How do we so casually discard, the right, for which so many fought. How do we so fully give away our voice, our power, in shaping Americas future.  Why are we pointing to somebody else when we could take the time just to go to the polling places? We GIVE AWAY our power.” 

As a post script side note: I needed to watch this a second time around, and certain parts over and over, to transcribe my favorite parts into quotes for this post. So the transcription work has been done by me, and my obvious crediting of the content of the quotes, goes to President Obama. I have provided a link to the speech here. <--  

“Thats what the young people here, and listening all across this nation, must take away from this day: You are America. Unconstrained by habit and convention, unencumbered by what IS, because you are ready to seize what OUGHT to be. For everywhere in this country there are first steps to be taken. Theres new ground to cover, there are more bridges to be crossed, and it is you, the young and fearless at heart, the most diverse and educated generation in our history who the Nation is waiting to follow. Because Selma shows us that, America is not the project of any one person. Because the single, most powerful word, in our democracy is the word “WE”. ‘We the people.’ ‘We shall overcome.’ ‘Yes, We can.’ That word is owned by no one, it belongs to everyone.” 

The Role of Women Leadership in Global Politics


Over recent election years, Americans have created a pattern of imagining themselves experiencing the first Presidential term where a woman holds office. With the election and re-election of our first African-American President, this mindset was only enhanced even more. To many, a woman holding government office in the United States would not only show how far our country has come in achieving democracy, but as a world power we would stand as a symbol for the rest of the globe right?

Not necessarily...

Statistics actually show that more women leaders reside in countries that are considered to be "developing nations" as opposed to already developed. Maybe this is because the country still distributes power through a royal bloodline, or there were so many human rights violations by the government a woman-just like any man-felt it was her duty to bring respect for rights back to the state. Maybe the reason she ran had nothing to do with the oppression of women, but the unfair distribution of wealth in the economic system.  

To be realistic, developing nations are very vulnerable when it comes to economic, social, and national security issues because they are still in the process of transition. This being said, there are a number of reasons why a women would be motivated to run for office. For example, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, has made astounding accomplishments in rebuilding Liberia after years of brutal civil war. She has made achievements toward economic growth and social justice that opened the door for her to be able to tackle certain gender inequalities. After being elected, she negotiated significant debt relief, quadrupled the national budget, and opened a huge investigation on government corruption and crimes committed during the civil war. Certain efforts that Sirleaf made such as quadrupling the national budget, led to a 40% increase of female children attending schools in Liberia. The result of her actions led to more equality in social conditions for women.

So is a government necessarily proving they are more democratic by electing a female President? Although there is no doubt that a diverse group of candidates makes a more democratic election, it can be hard to connect obtaining a woman leader specifically to the status of democracy in the state she represents, without looking at her policies. It is typical to assume that women leaders will be more compassionate about civil and human rights considering that the status of gender politics has left women oppressed in many states in history and still today. It is hard not to relate gender equality to the reason these women run, but by looking at the economic status of their country in comparison to the party they represent, and other sociopolitical factors, one can see what these women fight for beyond gender politics.


Here is a link that has a brief description of each female President/Prime Minister around the world: 
http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Current-Women-Leaders.htm

Here is a link providing statistical facts and figures:
http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures

President of Liberia story: 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/08/ellen-johnson-sirleaf-100-women


Sunday, February 8, 2015

Welcome to the Spring 2016 Class!



Welcome to our blog! The first step for class members is to set up an account with Blogger if they do not already have a google account. so I can add you to this blog so you can get started posting! You should have received an invitation from me. You do hot have to use your name, but please be sure to let me know what it is so that you get credit for your participation.

A few rules to follow:

1. No profanity or obscenities! This Blog will maintain professional standards of discourse!

2. No jerks.

3. No incivility. You are expected to treat one another with respect and offer constructive comments.

4. follow all rules about fair use of material--copyrights etc.

Remember you are expected to comment on your classmate's posts!!

Now....get blogging! 

Monday, May 19, 2014

The Tea Party Movement

          Many have speculated that the Tea Party has run its course.  The 2012 election cycle was the death knell of the more conservative, fiscally responsible faction of the Republican Party.  I disagree with this simply for the reason that there are still numerous candidates in Congress who have won elections running on the Tea Party platform.  Ted Cruz won in 2012, as did Deb Fischer of Nebraska.  The Tea Party candidates won in several primary elections only to lose to a Democrat in November.  The thing that is important to remember about the Tea Party movement is that it is still relatively new.  It has only been in existence since 2009 and will I believe continue to make inroads using the grassroots efforts that it has been using.  With people like Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz in Congress, as well as strong leaders like Sarah Palin, Allen West, Herman Cain, Rush Limbaugh, Ben Carson and Glenn Beck continuing to tour the country speaking to voters, I expect that the Tea Party will be here to stay.  Even if they do not eventually take over the Republican Party, their presence will at least be a deterrent to establishment Republicans that may help keep them on track.
         What the Tea Party wants is fiscal responsibility which is evidenced clearly by the fact they were formed after Democrats passed the ACA on a completely partisan vote.  The idea that the Tea Party is racist or sexist is also clearly rebuffed by the number of African American, Latino, and women leaders it has.  For me, the charge of racist or sexist is thrown at the Tea Party simply because it is the easiest way to try and silence the argument the Tea Party is making without actually answering to the charges.  

The evils of Koch

           The supreme court recently ruled that it was unconstitutional to put restrictions on the amount of money entities could give to political donations, effectively giving big corporations and wealthy donors the right to spend as much as they like to elect candidates.  The money can't go directly to the candidates coffers, but through super PAC's, people such as the Koch Brothers and George Soros can spend unlimited amounts.  Immediately, Democrats began a campaign against one particular entity, the Koch Brothers.  At first I was curious because of all the talk, how much did the Koch Brothers give to conservative causes?  I thought surely it must be the largest amount of all donors, and not by a small margin.  I was very wrong.  The Koch Brothers are not even in the top 50 according to opensecrets.org.  The top 10 donors are all primarily Democrat donors with the exception of National Board of Realtors that is effectively split between the parties.  Tom Steyer, the City of New York, Democrat Governors Association, and National Education Association are the top four donors and all of them are strongly democratic.  The Republican Governors Association at eleven is the first truly GOP donor.
           This calls into question why Senator Reid and other Democrats are so strongly pushing against the Koch Brothers.  Is it because they want to draw attention away from their own financial masters?  Or is it because they feel that a corporation should not have the same rights as a union for example?  To me it seems like nothing more than smoke and mirrors, trying to draw the attention of America to the Koch Brothers and away from the many issues they face in this coming election.  The democrats are in trouble this midterm, and they are desperately trying to control the losses that some are expecting in November.

http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Why only in Africa?

Nigeria is mired in violence and inequality. it's only girls who suffer? Nigerian counts as the highest GDOP in Africa., it also has more  nature resource. so why many people are suffering? violence is everyplace siglr part you go in Nigeria. Is the UN watching what is going on in Nigeria or they just wast to ignore it?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/11/nigeria-boko-haram-education-schoolgirls-kidnapped

Sunday, May 11, 2014

Astroturfing

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/11/1297694/-Anti-union-astroturf-group-is-not-watching-out-for-your-best-interests
Astroturfing is an interesting phenomenon. It is the practice whereby monied interests veil their sponsorship of an interest group in an effort to present it as the product of grassroots activism. So named for the nation’s favorite plastic grass-substitute, and much like that petroleum-based pasture it feigns the existence of grass roots with naught beneath but artificial support.

This practice seems sketchy at the best of times. Some defend it by claiming that it allows them to present their message free of any prejudice that may be attached to their reputation. While I can respect the desire to have one’s argument evaluated purely on its intellectual merits I can’t help but look at cases like the one I've linked to above and levy a certain degree of suspicion. Astroturfing doesn't just free monied interests from their own reputation, it allows them to co-opt the sense of legitimacy lended to actual grassroots organizations. There’s no such thing as a truly “neutral” medium when it comes to expressing political messages, and when you present a view that directly affects working-class people through a facade of working-class grassroots, it colors their perceptions just as much as presenting the argument as a corporate entity would.