Is This Real Life?

Surely nobody on the Romney/Ryan campaign team would have been proud of this Ohio rally attendant's choice in attire, and I'm sure it isn't a piece of clothing that they have endorsed, but I am still absolutely appalled by this image. one would hope that in this day in age the merit of a political official would be based upon the good or bad deeds he or she has accomplished while in office, and not by the color of their skin. I don't care which political party you affiliate yourself with, a joke this offensive should be appalling to anyone. If you don';t like the current president that is your own opinion, and as an American we are all entitled to our own opinions, but we didn't have the civil rights movement as a joke, and the color of our president's skin, something which should be celebrated, shouldn't become a joke either.

Will my Kids be Able to Afford Higher Education?

Growing up in my household not going to college was never an option, and in America it is forced upon children from an early age that those with a college education will have better opportunities for careers and livelihoods. These days however it is becoming increasingly difficult for college students to be able to afford their education, with many students coming out of college over 100,000$ in debt. On top of that the job market is not what it was in my parent's day, and those of us with a college education are lucky to find jobs that would have been considered in high demand 20 years ago. As a person who is about to graduate from college in less than a year, with a degree in art no less, it scares me to death to think about the opportunities I might not have in the future. With the ever increasing federal loan rates, not to mention outlandish private loan rates, it is frightening to think about the many children who may not get the opportunity to even attend college in the future. While this cartoon was clearly made by a non GOP party member, focusing on the believe by many liberals that the GOP is trying to cut funding for higher education in order to bring down national debt, it still brings to the forefront the fear of many high school graduates thinking about pursuing a college education. How in the world am I supposed to be able to afford my college education without being a 7 foot tall basketball star? 

I Wonder What Will Happen to Snuffaluffagus.

A highlight of the presidential debate this year was when Mitt Romney, in trying to make light the cutting of funding for PBS, made the mistake of targeting Big Bird in his argument. While I think the onslaught of political cartoons at his expense have been a bit much, it was merely a bad joke, I was pretty appalled when this subject of sesame street was brought up in the presidential debate. What I wanted from this debate was a chance to really learn the facts of the candidate's platforms, what I got was a chance for Mitt Romney to make himself more likeable and Obama to stick with the same facts of his entire campaign. This political cartoon is one that I found particularly interesting, as it brings back Romney's earlier flop concerning the recorded private fundraiser and his attack of the 47% of America that he believes to be freeloading off of the government. It also pulls into play the issues of outsourcing, and how many jobs America has lost to cheaper labor across seas. While I don't think that Romeny really thought before he went after Big Bird it is clear that Americans have latched onto this statement against a figure of most of our childhoods and run wild with it, this is certainly not the first cartoon I have seen dealing with the beloved feathery giant and his impending pink slip. I think in a time like this it is more important for our presidential candidates to honestly stand behind their platform, as opposed to cracking jokes about a children's character.

Horrible bosses...

I recently read an article having to do with a devastating email sent out to the employees of David Siegel, which strongly urged them to take into consideration the consequences the company would have befall it if Barrack Obama was re-elected this November. His email included the following: "The economy doesn’t currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company.” He doesn't condone Mitt Romney in the email anywhere, but the intent of the message is clear, which is to force his workers into voting for the republican candidate. One of the main differences between the platforms this election is which economical group is going to be taxed more heavily in order to alleviate the debt that this country has built up. Obama's campaign would focus this higher taxes on large corporations as opposed to the middle class, which he has said is the back bone of the country, it has been proven in the past that if the middle class flourishes so does the country. By taxing the higher income groups the middle class could stuff flourish and the debt would be decreased, sounds like a pretty sounds plan to me. Clearly this idea doesn't sit well with CEO David Siegel, his intention to force his employees into voting for his candidate is clear whether he wants it to seem so or not. I think it is astounding that someone, who names himself responsible for the jobs and welfare of his employees could think this gives him the right to voice his opinions to the extent in which he did so. This is America, the country of free speech and the freedom to choose the political candidate that you feel is going to make the best choices for your nation. While Mr. Siegel may have had the right to voice this opinion, I don't think bullying your employees into voting is the way to go about swinging votes in your direction.
The article can be found here: http://voice4america.com/paulbrown/2012/10/10/ceo-employees.html 

reflections on the trauma of my age

These past few weeks in my visual culture of politics class we have been focusing on trauma in art, more specifically on the influences of trauma on memorials. In an effort to make fresh the greatest trauma of the majority of our class's lives we watched different footage of the falling of the world trade centers on September 11, 2001. To be quite honest apart from that day and the following weeks, as well as the occasional footage screened on the anniversaries of the even I had not seen or watched any images of the falling of the twin towers. For me this moment in class brought back a lot of strong memories, ones that viewing the new 9/11 memorial in New York doesn't quite bring to surface. I was in the 6th grade, in my health class. These classes were held in two mobile homes outside of the main school building, later on the significance of being away from the main school would hit me, but not at the time of course...I was only 11. I vaguely remember another teacher coming in and telling something to my teacher after which we were ushered back into the building, and the humming in the halls about the planes having hit the World Trade Centers was everywhere. I can honestly say that as an 11 year old from Kentucky, and not a very worldly 11 year old at that, I had no idea what the World Trade Centers were, and how this news could possibly impact my life. It wasn't until we were brought into my English class and our teacher had the news on, and we witnessed the planes flying into the buildings, did I begin to fathom the magnitude of this horrific event. I haven't really pondered these memories many times in my life, but watching the footage that a family filmed that lived directly across the street from the buildings made me think of where I was that day and what I was feeling. It wasn't nearly as horrific as witnessing the even 500 yards away, but it still left an impact on my short life. When we began looking at memorials in class we focused on Maya Lin's Vietnam War memorial as well as the new 9/11 memorial. It was interesting to study the differences in feelings one has in viewing these memorials, and the peaceful intimacy that ensues as compared to the violence of what they are meant to represent. I personally believe that the footage from the New York apartment has a bigger impact, although that may not necessarily be a good thing. The memorials are poignant reminders of what happened, which serve as a way to lead us into our own thoughts and recollections. I think memorials serve as an integral part of society, and they can have as much of an impact as footage in this digital age. 

debate or reality tv?

My parents have always been big fans of "Sunday Morning" on CBS and the week preceding the debate they had a special giving a little history on past debates. They went over the debates that may have had an effective role in turning around the election for one party or the other, including the famous Kennedy vs. Nixon debate, as well as the Carter vs. Reagan debate. I have never had a grand interest in politics, not having been able to vote in previous elections I didn't think that I needed to watch the debates, I listened to what my family said about the participants, and then based my opinions on that. This year however I am a registered voter and this is the first time I have an active interest in the election, but I have to say that the debate didn't go necessarily how I thought it would. After having watched the special on "Sunday Morning" I believed that there would be a clear winner, and the debate would follow all ideas I had on debating, either the ideas I got from said special, or the fictional debates I had seen in movies or in school. To my surprise this was not how this year's presidential debate went at all. I watched the debate on NBC in my basement, with my boyfriend playing on the computer inputting tidbits of his opinion every now and then. After the debate I saw the media's reaction, and recognized that they felt very strongly that Mitt Romney was the clear winner, but I didn't exactly see it that way. I recognized a tired president who is juggling many things on his plate other than just the presidential election, but mostly I could not help but notice how passive Obama was versus Romney's bowling over of the mediator. Poor Jim Lehrer really didn't even need to be in the room as the participants were clearly going to address topics that they wanted to, and had been told to push. I think that Barrack Obama simply is not a confrontational man, and I believe that is a good quality in the leader of the free world, yes there were some issues that needed he needed to be more assertive about, but all in all he he appeared to me to be holding his composure not exhausted. Maybe restating the same facts over and over again wasn't the best idea, however at least he stuck to his facts. From the platform that I have seen Mitt Romney running on to his platform sold at the debate, there seemed to be a pretty big shift in the ideas. This debate, for me, turned into one big reality tv show, where the contestants are fed a plan, and then told to stick with this plan in order to gain more viewers, or in this case voters. Next time Obama may want to change his tactics, and it will be interesting to see how the next presidential debate goes down.