Saturday, December 18, 2010

Why Obama can't win if he tries if the present conditions remain

2011 is the year for planning.  That means folks planning for the Presidency and unseating the incumbent, Barack Obama; and in this case both parties have him in their sights, so it's likely he can't win if he tries if the present conditions remain.

The latest decision on passing the taxes for the rich and famous and the rest of us scored no friends for Obama.  For Republicans,  like Rush Limbaugh, determined for Obama to fail, anything good is no good for these folks.

For Democrats nothing is enough, that's for sure.  Pass a health care reform bill, and it's not enough for those who want national health care, and the Democrats rail about that.  For Republicans a little more for the rest of us is always too much for the rich folks to bear, who claim socialism for anything socially good much of the time.

So while Obama is beaten up left and right by those from both parties; it is likely just to get worse in the race to win in 2012.  The problem is what will it leave the country open to but rule by the elite once again, and the political divide only widen, as compromise continues to prevent anyone from doing anything reasonable and well.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

How the left's boom of Obama will keep the right wing in power

It isn't just Obama the party faithful has decided to indict, on opinion blogs and articles that dominate every news site.  This has been the pattern of the press and the Democratic party's damage to itself, as those who find it fashionable lower the boom on their leadership so visibly and continuously, they provide the ammunition to lose elections.
Democratic party faithlessness will potentially lose 2012 election for Obama
 It was common during the Bush - Gore election for the left and the independents (although independents are more Republican than anything else) to repeat the mantra that there was so little difference in the candidates, it really didn't matter.  Many people didn't go to the polls in that presumed "the lesser of two evils" premise.  The result was a virtual dead heat of a contest, with the ultimate decision made by the Supreme Court.  But Al Gore had been favored far beyond the stats on the election results.  It's just that it was fashionable to utter those words of indictment, that he was either dull or too much the same as the politician he was running against, to make much difference in vote.

Barack Obama is decidedly different than the right-wing group he opposes.  Yet the nature of politics is compromise, especially at a time when he's damned if he does or he doesn't.  Besides that, the impulsivity of the American public, the need to have everything done right now regardless of complications, makes it difficult for any President to function.  Add to this a right wing mantra that proclaimed that Obama had to be made to fail in the Rush Limbaugh call to arms.  The Republican party faithful proceeded to help do just that.  But the worse thing of all was the Democrats falling in line, like Little Sir Echo in multiples, to do much the same thing, criticize everything frequently, that created a negative atmosphere that set up Democratic candidates to lose and lose their agenda as well.

The problem is the Democrats are far more faithless to their leadership than the Republicans.  Most of the latter sided with Bush long after the former President began to crumble in the polls.

The party of no isn't just the Republicans, it's the party of Democrats too.  The media pattern has been criticizing the President as sport, not as fact all the time.  How many newspapers, for example, carried detailed coverage of the President's declarations on the oil spill and how many sought the sensational instead, which was all the bad press they could find.

The liberals help lose the last election, and they are poised to do it again.  It's easy for commentators and reporters to write opinion pieces negative to the President's policies.  They simply create a herd and follow themselves, without examination of specifics if those don't agree with their readers and the popular stance at the time.  They too want their fixes right now.

The article boxes of citiizen sites and online media organizations receive constant opinion articles, virtually all of them politically negative and mostly reciting the obvious.  Few offer anything new, but it gives the average Joe a place to rant and feel important all at the same time.  These rants, however, clog airwaves and Internet digits to the extent that more and more people get only the most negative news.

Those who must consistently find fault with the leader of their party and progressive views, that need to be dampened a bit so the President can find the middle ground suitable to govern, will likely cause progressive ideas and agenda to fail in the next election.  It won't take the President's mistakes as much to create a possible upset in 2012 with a Republican win.  It will be the foolishness of Democrats instead, who for the sake of prating fashionable politics, help deliver up for sacrifice the lamb they wanted for peace.

Monday, December 6, 2010

Avatars taking over the social media communities for some folk's security's sake

The move of folks to have avatars to represent themselves has taken over Facebook with more and more people using cartoons or pictures of shrubs or flowers as representing their image.  It's one thing to take on a persona as a real cartoon or new character for fun, but some say it's for security, which is a different issue entirely.
Twinky Avatar is one of the sites where people can create their own avatars and use them on social media sites
 Facebook is simply moving forward into its new territory, which isn't really new for some sites have been doing in for some time. began with some hoopla, where people could build their own pages, with posts, pictures, full articles and a range of possibilities, but it did not have the momentum Facebook has now.  Furthermore a site called Second Life uses avatars where people can build a second self that can be and do almost anything.  The imaginary world becomes more comfortable than one's own in some instances, that's what the message might say.

This is a different process than creating a Mary Poppins character or a Peter Pan who flies with children or an Uncle Remus who tells children stories.  The new way is to use a picture to hide one's own image for some just for fun but for others because of anxiety about security and safety issues.  As Facebook expands its reach, how much more risk is caused by what it does vs. the entire Internet process that is being abused left and right?

While some people are concerned about Facebook's expansion and believe in having restrictions, many of these same people support a Julian Assange who exposes everything right down to the government's underwear with the Wikileaks business, that many people believe is the practice of free speech.  Yet that same openness on another platform is questioned.

The use of avatars for communication is more than just a story that it happens on Facebook but the underlying reason people decide to do it.  While some people think it is fun and enjoy it,  others worry about security and reduce their information because of such things.

The facts really are that the Internet provides the best and worst of times for users and abusers and is the world we have created right now.  It isn't just Facebook that does this.  So no one should wonder that responsible people are beginning to consider some rules of the game, because not having them might get more folks into trouble than aid them.  But for others it is only just fun.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

The end justifies the means and entitlement beliefs risk ethical boundaries

"The journalists that are out of work deserve it.  Its a new world now, and the alternative media has took up the task because the journalists you admire so much failed to do their job."
Doctor's office in a mess - wikimedia commons
This is the response of a "citizen journalist" to Wikileaks.  He goes on to say that Julian Assange, the founder, is a "hero to many, and his courage has put him in the line of fire."

There is little that hasn't been said in the debate about Julian Assange, who has leaked 250,000 documents of information that was stolen from a fellow computer hacker of classified U.S. documents.

So what was Assange's purpose?  To really educate, inform, hold power to account on matters that elevate man?  Or was it to serve his sense of entitlement and to set a dangerous precedent, already manifested in many ways that lead not to enlightenment but the reverse.

For if anyone can take the responsibility for disseminating classified documents by initially stealing them, it is a statement certainly the end justifies the means.  The other dark precedent is the statement that says I need no education, training, review or control to do what I do.  This is manifested in many areas outside of journalism as well, and the problems are much the same thing.  The fellow who takes a weekend course on a multilevel marketing scheme of a product overnight presents himself or herself as an authority on wellness, usually denigrating the medical profession as irresponsible and not up to the task.  The argument is that the medical profession makes mistakes, doesn't resolve all the problems and therefore is not up to the job.

Furthermore, If Assange has the protections afforded the press, than why not give these protections to everyone else?  Why not arm everyone with a notepad to report on everyone else, willy nilly, since the chances are your neighbor has secrets to hide.

Institutions certainly have issues and fail in what they should do, but opening floodgates against them abruptly rather than in ways that protect people too can create worse conditions in the future as all hell breaks loose everywhere from Chicken Little.

While citizen journalists and overnight health experts, both point to the arrogance of doctors, lawyers, and trained journalists, the arrogance of the citizen practitioner is simply far worse, in believing he or she can get something for nothing, a sense of entitlement that has brought down the economy and political stability at large, creating chaos for everyone else.