"Cold Calling"

In practically every commercial concerning the candidates, outsourcing, trade, American jobs, and the economy seem to be hot topics. So what exactly is the right solution? This post isn't necessarily to try to find which is better; to outsource or not to outsource, more international trade or less international trade - because of course they each have their pros and cons - but rather, it's how to lower the cons of each...

Many Americans advocate reducing trade because they think it would preserve more jobs here at home, but is that really the case? A couple of years ago, the government demanded a sugar quota wherein they reduced the amount of sugar imported into the U.S. in order to preserve jobs in the U.S. sugar industry. What happened was some candy firms were forced to close down because the price of sugar was way too high (in comparison to the world price) for them to continue their business. All in all, those who gained included the U.S. companies that produced the sugar but the U.S. companies that used sugar, their employees, and us as consumers lost out.

Outsourcing ss kind of a double edged sword, people are losing their jobs to global outsourcing, about 200,000 a year to be exact, but isn't it true that approximately 7 million jobs are gained and lost every year in the U.S., 30 million jobs are created as old ones are destroyed? Service sector jobs account for 70 to 80% of the jobs in the U.S. so can we really be doing that much damage by outsourcing? Outsourcing allows corporate owners to benefit, investors to benefit and most importantly, consumers to benefit. It saves money for the corporations since they're able to lower the expenses and it thus lowers the prices to consumers, in effect boosting the economy. Do we consider technological change a form of outsourcing? Why isn't that looked down upon if it has more or less the same effect? But then what about those who lost their job and don't have any training in any other field? Should they just be left to live in poverty because their job was shipped to another country for the sake of a cheaper commodity? Then we have the issue of the effect it has on other countries. Are we not, although not directly, promoting sweatshops, encouraging low standards of living to foreign nations? Is the solution to continue to outsource while also training more workers in the U.S. to occupy other jobs? Or should we just bring the jobs home and risk having to spend a higher price on goods?

A Black Guy or a Woman?

This post is similar to Noelle's in that it has to deal with the issue of not only race but prejudice in general. In this article, reporters went out to the surrounding cities of Detroit and got the opinions of those regarding who'd they vote for. One man stated "What kind of choice do guys like me have? A black guy or a woman, it's a lesser of two evils." To him it was basically voting for an old white man (who he thought would soon die and have the presidency given to a woman) who he coulnd't relate to or a black man who portrayed most of his ideals. In reading that, I got so annoyed at how ignorant people can be. I'm Hispanic and get rather upset when I speak to someone and they assume I'm some bleeding heart Liberal just because of my ethinicity. In the same respect, I don't think it's fair for Obama (or the country for that matter) to believe in him as a candidate because of all of his ideals and policies but not to be able to see past his color. I believe in Democracy and if the country wants what Obama stands for as something to run the country, then that should be the deciding factor, not the fact that he's black. At the same time, let's say McCain wins the presidency, who's to say that he won not because people believed in what he stood for, but because he was the only other option to a black man. It's not fair, but it's also not reasonable. Why on Earth would you vote for somebody who you think is going to tear your means of living apart when there is a perfectly good candidate that emphasizes your goals?

At the same time, many say McCain picked Palin because she is a woman. How is that fair to her to say that it's not the fact that she's done this or that for the country, just that fact that she's female is what is going to give her the ticket. It undermines her as a candidate and demeans her as a woman. When Clinton was running, the remarks made towards her dealt with gender identity politics so when she was called a "bitch," it wasn't about not liking her, but not liking her because she was a woman. And of course the only reason she got so far was because she received all the female votes. But in reality, when she ran, 35% of woman voted for Obama as opposed to the 30% that voted for her. Why is it so hard for people to believe that women can hold powerful positions because of their ability not because of some external factors that ultimately degrade their accomplishments?

I might be generalizing, but I think people focus entirely too much on the candidate and not on their platform. Of course, I understand that it is the candidate who is running, but they are running to represent a nation, not a gender and not a particular race.

What's Fair?

I've always been entertained by the media and how ridiculous it can be at times, but how necessary it is nonetheless. In class we discussed how the media is forced into playing the footage they do and how they must compete with other stations and although this may be true in some cases, I still blame the media for the lack of complete information they portray. To me, media, at least when it comes to mass politics, has a responsibility to inform the country. I honestly think, our country would be better off if people were more informed and were able to make educated decisions regarding our country. Although media stations do need to compete with each other, I don't think that's an adequate excuse for understanding why they can't give decent information and facts.

Something I do believe is somewhat out of the media's control which might explain why they relay stories that are rather trivial or biased at times is because of the ownership of the media sources. If GE is under some scrutiny and there was some news story that made GE look bad, it would most likely not be played on MSNBC due to the fact that it's owned by GE even if it's played on nearly every other station. There is this cycle of approval in which reporters, journalists, anchors, etc, don't do their job (that being adequate news stories) because of their ties to the companies that own the sources. These people want to maintain relationships with those in charge and this in turn affects the reporting. It leads to this sense of pressured journalism where they try to benefit or make more attractive those who are in control, and in no way would they want to alienate those who they should be loyal to.

In response to this, some have enforced standards for fair media but even this isn't necessarily fair. I don't think media should be unbiased, one because it's impossible to have objectivity with such an array of information where you can't possibly cover every story and two because things like equal time and equal credibility is just not fair. I know that sounds contradictory, but I believe that biased media is good media. Networks are known for leaning towards one side and as long as they tell the whole story from one side and the other side tells the whole story from their side, then you get what you need. I think it's up to the viewer, listener, reader not to have to necessarily do research on their own, but just to know that there are two sides to every story. I learned about "equal time" in the media and I think it's a ridiculous concept. Although it seems like a reasonable suggestion, it's not necessarily good. For instance, if talking about Global Warming, if it were according to the equal time rule, they would give someone who is informing us that the environmental crisis' we've been facing is due to global warming and then have someone counter it saying that it's an evolutionary climate change. Although there might be truth to the climate change argument, in reality, global warming is the cause, yet some will not know any better because they continue to emphasize both sides when one is clearly not right. Along with this, equality in media isn't always fair anyways. I don't remember what show is was, but it was on MSNBC and they were talking about the economy in response to the presidential candidates. They had commentators from both the Democratic and Republican side in order to expose some sort of impartiality, yet everytime the Republican spoke, he was completely cut off and interrupted. Instead of this kind of demonstration, can't they just show what the Democrat thinks about it and then let another station deal with Republicans side?

They Have Emotions Too...

We discussed in class "emotional contagion" and how emotions are a tool for promoting identification with a candidate. I thought this was very interesting because we tend not to realize or at least not acknowledge that we make decisions and act on behalf of emotions, which could in turn allow us to make very bad decisions and judgments about people.
The whole "framework" aspect of our discussion also caught my attention because it happens so frequently. I disagreed with the example used in class with the WTC and how they felt the RNC exploited the issue, because also being from NY, whenever 9/11 is mentioned, it stirs about an enormous amount of emotions within me and when it's brought up, I feel as though people acknowledge that it actually happened. In one of the videos we watched, they mentioned that 9/11 happened 7 years ago and seemed and seemed almost apathetic about it and I was almost hurt from the way in which they said it. In realizing this though, that one of my classmates who was also from NY felt that is was an exploitation whereas I totally disagreed I understood that candidates definitely play on their audience and their expectations.

Something not mentioned in class but I think is equally important is how a candidate's emotions affect us. If you contrast McCain to Obama, McCain is so indifferent in his sentiment that when he smiles it seems almost creepy and definitely forced, and it also gives signs that he doesn't seem sincere in what he's saying. Obama on the other hand, the emotion he portrays and the fervor he gives off makes whatever he says seem as though it's something he's passionate about. Although not an Obama supporter, (or McCain supporter for that matter) I'm always so amazed at his orating skills and how it gets me wound up even though I'm not one of his supporters. With this, can you imagine how heavy that plays on someone who is on the fence? Someone who isn't sure with way they're going will most likely see Obama's enthusiam and emotion as signs of someone who is concerned and who cares. At the same time though, for an avid supporter of the opponent, hearing a speech like Obama's might just annoy them and think he's exaggerating and completely artificial.

End of War... Right Part II

He says that his ability to withdraw the troops will allow him to help the economy and decrease the deficit, but even his supposed speedy removal wouldn't help the budget, if anything, refueling the military and restoring those countries is more likely to cost him.
And these families that are being hurt, I'm sure they'll be plenty happy when their sons and daughters and brothers and sisters and moms and dads come home just to be redeployed to Afghanistan. So yes Obama, of course we'd love to bring our troops back, but maybe you should inform the people that you plan on sending thousands of troops not only to Afghanistan but possibly and probably to Pakistan as well. He's ready and willing to invade a sovereign country, with an unwarranted attack which could not only undermine the country's stability, but create even more militancy.
Obama flip flops more than Kerry did and he does it whenever he deems relevant. It's nice to tell the American people that you want out of war for the sake of your campaign but then you also threaten to attack a country to show supposed strength as a leader.

End of War? Right...

One of the things Obama continues to rely on is his position on the war in Iraq. He claimed he would have the troops removed form Iraq within a 16 month time frame and in fact, thats what most people hear, but maybe they missed him not committing to removal of troops by 2013 in one of his recent debates. His smooth talking makes him a great orator but for those who are willing to listen, his talk is naive and insincere. He is all about getting the troops out because lives are being lost, families are being hurt, the economy is suffering, our resources are dimming, etc, etc...Let's take a look at what he hasn't said...
Since the resurgency, Iraq has changed for the better, there is less violence and troops are able to finally make progress there. Troops are now withdrawing and the forces in Iraq have been able to give more leadership positions to those in Iraq and in certain places are just there to overlook what's going on. And yes, Obama pledges not to maintain bases in Iraq, but he still wants to leave troops there. A "residual force" he calls it. Well if there isnt a reason to be in Iraq, then why does he feel troops should remain?