The Evolution of the Presidential Image: the Crafting for Public Consumption

“I am who the media says I am.

I say what they say I say.

I become who they say I’ve become.”

 -Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope

                   Photo by Pete Souza, whitehouse.gov

The President’s public image has been the concern of every administration since the invention of the camera. Abraham Lincoln was seen as an uncivilized country lawyer upon his election. His photographer, Matthew Brady, was regarded by Lincoln as the man who made him president. Images of Lincoln with messy hair and meager attire soon became a refined and combed gentleman with Brady’s crafting. Current public knowledge permits that Franklin Roosevelt was a paraplegic since long before he took office, but only three pictures of him in a wheelchair exist. As far as the public was concerned in the 20 years after his death, Roosevelt was an able-bodied man and if any pictures were taken of the contrary, cameras were confiscated by the Secret Service. Lincoln and Roosevelt had carefully crafted images so as to be viewed more favorably in the eyes of the public.

When Obama, much like Lincoln, was faced with considerable scrutiny at the beginning of his first term, the Obama administration began a synchronized campaign to craft a new image of the President in the eye of the public. One of the methods used was emphasis on association with popular culture, accomplished through dozens of photos where celebrities were pictured with Obama. Pete Souza, the current White House photographer, was the first to distribute images of the President via social media. With apps like Flickr, Instagram, and Pinterest in its arsenal, the administration viewed independent media as being no longer needed to represent its point of view to the public. Press photographers were excluded from various events while Souza had unrestricted access to the president.

In response, 38 news organizations, including the likes of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, and NBC News signed a letter of protest to the White House in response to Jay Carney for ignoring complaints of coverage and access. A section of the letter reads:

“As surely as if they were placing a hand over the journalist’s camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the Executive Branch of government.”

The First Amendment defends “the public and press from abridgment of their rights of access to information about the operation of their government” which seems to be at odds with the policies of the White House. Events to which independent media has been barred was due to the declaration of the event being ‘private,’ only for the White House to post its own photos of the event. Scrolling through the White House photo gallery, one can examine how carefully created and symbolic each picture is. You can see the symbolism of President Obama talking with Governor Mike Pence, with the nearby portrait of Abraham Lincoln looking the other way, or the picture of Obama looking up at a portrait of John Kennedy, who is in turn looking down on him. Each picture was carefully crafted to project a certain image, agenda, or feeling, ultimately to better the view of the President. Under Bush, or any other President, photos by White House staff were used as carefully staged propaganda to heighten public opinion of the highest office. Supposed violations of the First Amendment are certainly always debatable to some degree, and Jay Carney defends his administration saying every president has had meetings the media has not been allowed to attend. Some argue that social media has eliminated the need for independent media in some cases. The various media organizations counter Carney with they have had the least access to the Obama administration compared to any other.  Should independent media continue to be viewed as obsolete with the integration and usefulness of social media, or should the press be just as welcome at White House events as the White House’s own photography staff?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WrZKgTNE0g

Technological advancements and their effect on security.

A recent article published by the Wall Street Journal discusses expected security threats to states, businesses, and individuals as a result of the persistent development of technology.   The article considers what may occur when technology is placed in the wrong hands.  A few of the suggested threats include biological warfare, hacking, and drones.  For example, as drones become more available to the public they could be used inappropriately for spying purposes or new scientific developments could assist individuals in developing diseases and exposing them to the public.  These examples seem pretty drastic and may sound like they came right out of a NBC TV show, but they are perfectly possible considering the invasive practices that already occur with our current technology. 

I think with new technology will come great debates about the role of the government.  We already live in an era where privacy doesn’t necessarily mean what it used to.  We choose to sacrifice certain elements of privacy in exchange for protection, but does transparency mean safety? How much is too much? What does privacy mean to a person in 2015?

It’s interesting to see how these technologies have already affected U.S. security.  For instance, the current drone policy as a counterterrorism strategy has been controversial due to questions of legality and civilian deaths.  There is no doubt that the use of drones decreases U.S. military casualties, however as a long term solution it is insufficient.  One negative affect of this policy is increased anti-American sentiment and contribution to recruitment for terrorist organizations in the Middle East as a result of civilian deaths.  So it would seem that terrorists are being replaced as quickly as they are being taken out, and at the expense of hundreds, perhaps thousands of civilians. 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-laws-for-new-threats-like-drones-and-bioterrorism-1429297143

Can We Trust Cuba To Be Removed From State Sponsor of Terror List?

The White House announced today that President Barack Obama, will removed Cuba from the list of state terrorism. According to Julie Pace, President Obama sent a message to Congress saying that, the government of Cuba "has not provided any support for international terrorist" over the last six months. Is this enough months to trust Cuba? we can all have different opinion on this question, but so far I think this will be very hard issue to pass in Congress. recently, when the President was at Panama Summit, they were a lot of talk in the state saying why the President refuse to meet with Netanyahu, but decided to make deal with a communist regime. I understand that things haven't work out with Cuba over the past 60 years, do you think this is a time to make right?

Hillary Clinton 2016?

          Hillary Clinton has officially announced that she will run for president in 2016. This is amid several recent scandals, including her private email server and her handling of the Benghazi attack that took place on September 11th 2012. It seems to me that Hillary must be extremely confident if the thinks she'll be able to run as an effective candidate when her credibility both as a person, and as a political official is so questionable.

          Her private Email server is such an important issue for several reasons. The first being that because this was a private Email server the government has no record of any email sent or received By Ms. Clinton. Her aids also used private Email, and the server had the capacity to delete Emails completely, leaving no record of their existence. Not to mention the fact that a hacker could have easily breached the security of the server. The frightening truth is that Hilary intentionally used a private Email so that the state department would have no record, meaning that she intended to keep her correspondence between important officials secret from, not only the people, but the government as well. Though She Herself tuned over 55,000 emails from her server "a proper search was not conducted" according to Judicial Watch Lawyer Michael Bekesha.

          Hillary's history of corruption begins in 1974 when Hillary Clinton worked for the House Judiciary Committee. At this time they were investigating Richard Nixon's involvement with the Watergate scandal. Hillary along with several other Members of the committee conspired to remove Nixon's right to legal council. In order to do this She, according to Her Boss Jerry Zeifman, stole documents and wrote a fraudulent legal brief that ignored the right to legal council precedent set during the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Zeifman believed that the brief was so fraudulent that had Hillary submitted it to a judge he believed she would have been disbarred. This event serves to underline her obvious contempt for the legal processes and institutions of the Constitution and this Country.

          The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton has been the center of many scandals over her entire political career. Many other presidential candidates with less storied pasts have run and lost because of them. This means that unless Hillary is ready to loose She'll need a virtual media firestorm of support in order to be elected.


Sources
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/documents-obtained-judicial-watch-reveal-top-hillary-clinton-advisers-knew-immediately-assault-benghazi-armed-attack/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/judicial-watch-the-clintons/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-announces-list-washingtons-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2008/
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-email-state-department-foia-116030.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2981534/posts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpPrhkmV_rA

Death Penalty for the Boston Marathon Bomber?

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Found Guilty, May Face Death Penalty

As many of us already know The Boston Marathon was bombed almost two years ago to the date. It's known the bombing was planned and carried out by the Tsarnaev brothers. Tamerlan, the older of the two who was shot and killed during a standoff with Watertown Police, and the younger of the two Dzhokhar. With Dzhokhar being the only one left to stand trial, he was charged with 30 counts with many having the death penalty as a sentence if found guilty. Today the jury came to the verdict after about 12 hours of deliberation over a 2 day period. They found Tsarnaev to be guilty on all 30 counts his faced. Now, the same jury moves to the sentencing phase. With more witness testimonies the group of seven women and 5 men will have to decided if Tsarnaev should be put to death or not. The vote for him to receive the death penalty must be unanimous.

The question comes into play now if death is the easy way out for a man who injured over 200 people and killed 4. The Tsarnaev brothers set out to cause death and destruction on innocent civilians, but is sentencing him to death enough justice for the atrocities they caused? I believe not. Making him suffer in prison for the rest of his life seems more fitting for me. Those in favor of the death penalty might claim that their is no mistakes in this case, everyone knows he did it, thus there can't be any mistake in killing an innocent man which has happened in other death penalty cases. But isn't that the easy way out for a 21 year old? He would have to spend his entire life thinking about the decisions he made if not sentenced to death. He's a coward and doesn't deserve the right to forget about the mistakes he's made. Let him rot in prison. Opinions? Do you think that seeing we live so close to Boston we're more likely to lean one way or another on the issue? Is the death penalty really the answer?


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32225787
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/08/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-verdict-boston-marathon-bombing

Funding for Food Safety

In 2010 Congress passed a law that allowed the Food and Drug Administration to create new rules and powers to prevent further food outbreaks that were getting people sicks. However, Congress has not provided the money to the FDA to enforce these practices. The FDA requested 580 million dollars to make these changes, but Congress has given them less than half of this amount.

An estimated 48 million Americans have food-borne illnesses each year, but without the required funding for these changes this number could increase. Since Congress is in the hands of Republicans and they are trying to cut back on spending the FDA is not sure they will receive the money they need. “If we keep shortchanging the F.D.A., it will continue to cost us billions of dollars a year to deal with food-borne illness,” said Ms. DeLauro, a member of the appropriations subcommittee that oversees the agency’s funding.

Without the proper funding the FDA will not be able to train 2,000 employees on the new standards that are required in food safety. It is also believed that the agency will not be able to oversee food imports as strictly as they would like. Harold Rogers, Republican of Kentucky said that anything more than 100 million dollars will be hard to give to the FDA. Should the FDA get the money it is asking for or are they asking for too much at the wrong time?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/food-safety-laws-funding-is-far-below-estimated-requirement.html?ref=us&_r=0

The Uniting of Nations Gone Sour

Illustration by Joohee Yoon via New York Times

It is no secret that the United Nations includes non-democratic members. In fact, out of the current 193 member nations, less than half are led by  democratic governments. The point of the UN is to promote international cooperation including issues on human rights and social justice. Yet, many of the member nations that head or are members of the Human Rights Council or the Commission on the Status of Women are known violators of the very statutes on which the United Nations stands.

For example Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Venezuela are all members of the UN Human Rights Council. Ironically, all three of these countries have histories of suppressing the rights of their citizens. Saudi Arabia with it's strict congruence with Sharia Law and spotty claims to citizens right to due process, has repeatedly been listed for the ongoing and most severe human rights violations. Qatar, which also has a history of suppressing protesters or anyone that would speak against social principles, while also violating the rights of migrant workers. Venezuela, where the socialist and militaristic regime is known for it's harsh responses to protesters.

Another example being the fact that Iran and Sudan are both members of the Commission on the Status of Women. While Iran continues to sanction the stoning of women for the crime of adultery and other such "honor killings". In Sudan, young girls are subject to genital mutilation. All of these instances are recognized as gender specific violence and therefore human rights violations. Yet both countries are represented on this commission and allowed to pass judgement on other nations.

Specifically noted by Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, is that Israel in particular is targeted far more than others as a result of these loose committee membership legitimacy situations. For example, the Non-Aligned Movement, consisting of 120 member countries, is a bloc and has been chaired by Iran since 2012. This gives Iran the ability to raise 120 votes against Israel, it's enemy. Also, going back to the Human Rights Council, in it's agenda there is Item 4 which brings up issues that require the councils attention. There is also an Item 7, which is specifically for human rights situations in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories. This means that there is an entire council agenda item that can almost exclusively target Israel, as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia serve to judge. Ambassador Prosor repeatedly states how Israel faces multiple condemnations from these committees and commissions while there are violators sitting on them as members.

While I am a supporter of the UN and what it stands for, I feel that the strength of it's original standings has dwindled. As an organization that is meant to serve the world justice, it lets an awful lot slip through the cracks. The fact that some countries serve on these committees and commissions (that are meant to uphold rights and justices) while openly violating these very ideals, I feel should be an embarrassment to the UN leadership. Continuing to allow the UN's democratic forum to be taken advantage of, and to be manipulated in order to hide and overlook the discrepancies of some countries is a mistake. All nations need to be held accountable for their actions, and they should not be allowed to abuse a system that is meant for the benefit of the international community.

Sources:

• http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/opinion/united-in-ignominy.html?src=me&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Most%20Emailed&pgtype=Multimedia
• http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/qatar?page=1
• http://www.unfpa.org/

Human Rights Council Agenda Link:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/10session/ProvAgenda10session.pdf
H.R.C Member List:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/CurrentMembers.aspx