Final It's All Politics, Week #10 overall

(LINK http://www.npr.org/2012/07/05/156333429/its-all-politics-july-5-2012)

                                                                       

Mutanatia was now sitting at his desk, looking eagerly at his students. “Welcome to week #5 of It’s All Politics from NPR, hosted by Ken Rudin and Ron Elving,” He said. “This is also our 10^th week. This unit, we’ll discuss a somewhat entertaining take on the news. Not only do these guys report political news in what I think is a relatively neutral way, but they also make jokes and have a laugh on the way.  It is by far the place I like listening to actual political news for a quick recap.

This is the week after the Supreme Court decision regarding Obamacare. With this in mind, all discussion questions have to do with the SC decision.

For this episode, we will be dealing only with discussion questions. Your homework will be the essay, posted below, and we will be off for 5 weeks so you can write your essay.

Here are the discussion questions:”

1)    Is ObamaCare a tax or a penalty?

2)    What would be the problem if Romney called it, as he did at first, a “penalty?”

3)    Did Romney’s about-face exacerbate the situation for him?

4)    Is Romney calling the Patient Health and Affordable Care Act a tax, “Better” for him?

He then passed out the homework:

ESSAY HOMEWORK:

Discuss the various merits and downfalls of sources such as blogs, shows such as Real Time with Bill Maher. For the merits, discuss what you might find there to gain a better understanding of the political world around you, paying special attention to ads you may not have seen, issues you didn’t know existed, etc. For the downfalls, pay special attention to what happens if you take blogs, Bill Maher, and so on as “fact” vs. taking them as what they are, which is opinion. See you in 5 weeks!

Blinding Loyalty: Trust but don't verify?

Blinding Loyalty:

Trust but don’t Verify?

I was inspired tonight by an excerpt from a column, written by Thomas Friedman, foreign policy columnist for the New York Times. His column was named Israel’s Best Friend. In it, he writes,

In recent years, Republicans have tried to make support for Israel a wedge issue that would enable them to garner a higher percentage of Jewish votes and campaign contributions, which traditionally have swung overwhelmingly Democratic. This has led to an arms race with the Democrats over who is more pro-Israel — and over-the-top declarations, like Newt Gingrich’s that the Palestinians “are an invented people.”

The topic tonight is not going to be about Israel. That speaks for itself, you are either pro-Israel or anti-Israel; rarely is there someone in between. However, the larger point, I think, being raised in his column, is: Should we always be loyal to our Allies? Should we never verify what our close friend says? Do we always take what is presented to us as truth?

This is a small-er problem when it comes to dealing with  allies such as Canada, the U.K. and France; it is a larger problem when dealing with nations such as Bahrain. In Bahrain, we weren’t exactly close with them, but we did have a military base there. Was it right for us to completely ignore the rebellion there, the results of which have been oppression and downright human right violations? I do not think so.

Further, what of South Korea? What if South Korea does something deliberately (alternate universe here) to attack North Korea? Should we blindly voice our support to our ally, attack North Korea, and possibly risk war with China? I do not think that this would lead to any great results.

For a micro-example, consider GWB’s looking into the “soul” of Vladimir Putin. And look at what has happened since then: Putin has taken charge of Russia once again and has wreaked havoc on his own people, who are protesting the election and censorship of the very man whom we once trusted.

Certainly, taking things at face-value has its benefits: Russia takes Syria’s claims that there are terrorists in its country at face value and thus avoids a costly war, which it can stymie by not allowing the UN Security Council to draft a resolution; but it also has its negatives as well: America decides to stand by (for better or for worse) and allows the UN to try to keep peace in Kosovo, rather than trying to foster an agreement or remove its troops entirely in protest—the UN peacekeepers do not seem to be doing a good job there. Should we be mad at the UN one day, but be perfectly happy with it the other? This does not seem to be a productive discourse.

I think Ronald Reagan’s words sum it up best: Trust, but verify. 

Mitt Romney: A comedy of Errors

As I announced on Facebook, regardless of the importance Americans put on foreign policy…. Mitt Romney has now officially LOST the foreign policy debate. NPR reports him as being risk-averse, tight-lipped, always knowing what to say, and self-monitored. Yet on his last foreign trip to Poland, the UK, and Israel, he has been anything but. Instead, he has created risks. He has also said “America doesn’t apologize.” For one who says that America will say it is sorry, but won’t apologize—a quote that I think refers to America admitting its mistakes, but not apologizing for its greatness—he has done an awful lot of “saying sorry.”

We’ll begin with the UK. In the UK in an NBC interview, he openly wondered if the UK was “ready” for the Olympics. First of all, this is sort of a sound bite; his real quote was something along the lines of “Will the UK accept the Olympics culturally as their own.” The result was that the United Kingdom was sent into a fury, sparking headlines such as “Mitt the Twit.” Even London’s Mayor got mad and was determined to prove Mitt Romney wrong. On to Poland, if I remember that rightly, where another gaffe was committed.

In Poland, at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Romney was being harried by the press, who was wondering what he had to say about his many gaffes. A Romney advisor went over to the reporters, told them that it was a “Holy site” and t give Romney room and respect—and then proceeded to tell the reporters, asking incessant questions, to “kiss my [butt].” And the disaster was only in its second chapter.

The final chapter we will stop by is in Israel. Mitt Romney first said that Jerusalem was the capital of the country; it’s not; it is Tel Aviv. Next, he was asked why the Palestinians were worse off than Israelis. He injected himself into the debate way before he was even going to be President (if elected), and attributed this to “cultural differences.” Oh, but wait, there is more! In addition to this, the bright spot was that he takes a pro-Israeli stance, yet the Jewish Americans in our country still like Obama!

The end result is this all adds up to a comedy (or tragedy if you’re on his side) of errors that seem to lead to the conclusion that Mitt Romney, though he may be a very bright man, doesn’t have the slightest idea of how to censor himself, much let alone have the common sense to avoid touchy matters. This is why I think Mitt Romney has lost the foreign policy debate.  

NPR It's all Politics, Week #4 (#9 overall)

(LINK http://www.npr.org/2012/06/29/155978722/its-all-politics-june-28-2012)

                                                                       

Mutanatia was now sitting at his desk, looking eagerly at his students. “Welcome to week #4 of It’s All Politics from NPR, hosted by Ken Rudin and Ron Elving,” He said. “This is also our 9^th week. This unit, we’ll discuss a somewhat entertaining take on the news. Not only do these guys report political news in what I think is a relatively neutral way, but they also make jokes and have a laugh on the way.  It is by far the place I like listening to actual political news for a quick recap.

We’ll begin with a pre-class discussion: Why do you think every news media outlet, including NPR and FOX NEWS, were expecting the Supreme Court to strike down the Patient and Affordable Care Act, also known at Obamacare?  

Here are the discussion questions:”

1)    Do you think that Mitt Romney may actually be happy that the SCOTUS ruled the way it did (in secret, of course)? Do you think that this validation of Obamacare, in effect validated Romneycare?

2)    Regardless of outcome, do you think both sides are just glad to get this over with, because now they have something to actually talk about rather than its validity?

3)    Do you think that the “Show me your papers” law has the potential to go down the road of racial profiling?

He then passed out the homework:

Homework:

For the homework, this time, I am looking for a short essay:

In a brief, well-developed essay, describe the risks of the media, including blogs, reporting on events such as this one while assuming the outcome. Is this a generally positive thing to do, or a generally negative thing to do?

For the last NPR class before we take a 5-week break during which you will hear shows that will make you think, laugh, or both and are NOT related to politics, we will discuss the fallout of the SCOTUS’s decision.