Monday, April 25, 2011

The "Birther" conspiracy -- What is it Really About? And Donald Trump as President...say what??

The "birther" conspiracy. It was once thought of as a "fringe" or "extremist" view among the right, but with good 'ole Donald Trump reinvigorating the fire, more and more conservatives seem to be somewhat doubtful about Obama's original birthplace. Despite the release of his "certification of live birth" during the 2008 campaign, an unusually large number of Republican voters still believe Obama could actually be Kenyan. For many who believe Obama isn't a U.S. citizen, their main beef is about the difference between a certificate of live birth vs. a long-form birth certificate. But problem number one, is the improper verbage use in that comparison. The certificate of live birth is the "long-form" birth certificate. What people are really discussing is the difference between a certificate of live birth and certification of live birth. An original certificate of live birth, which is filed once you are born, is immediately turned over to the State Department once the proper information is filled out, and is kept in a file. The certification of live birth is the copy of your (commonly known as) birth certificate to use for a variety of verification purposes. Lost somehow in the entire discussion is the reality that original copies of live birth are never released, even to the individuals themselves and the State Department of Hawaii has verified on several occasions the existence of Obama's original certificate of live birth. President Obama could get a copy of his original birth certificate if he is able to show the Department of Health and Human services in Hawaii he has a "tangible interest" in obtaining the copy.

Not to mention, in two completely separate newspapers, Obama's birth announcement was printed along with announcements of other births, weddings, and funerals. So the question I have is this: how in the world can you conclude with all this information that our U.S. government is involved in a conspiracy so profound, it actually had a hand in planting birth announcements in two Honolulu newspapers 50 years ago -- all to later help nominate the President of the United States. Really? Why that kid? Why would someone say, "Oh yes, this newborn is totally going to become the first black President in the U.S. We are totally going to pull a lot of strings to make this nobody, poor, mixed kid become a Senator and later a President." Really? REALLY??

I mean, what a joke. It seems to me this is a futile ploy by the extreme right to distract from important things and hand, and a desire to discredit President Obama as a legitimate leader of this country. Say what you want about his policy, but to actually spend time and energy on debating his birth place? Do you really think any old joe can just stroll into the White House without validation of his citizenship? I mean, let's think about the verification process you go through with applying for a passport. And you actually believe that someone could so easily get into the White House. Oh wait, I forgot. The government is also involved in this conspiracy. How could I be so blind.

Let's talk about real issues -- the economy, jobs, education, the budget maybe?

Here's a Newsy story I wrote on it.


pp


Great article summarizing the difference between a certificate of live birth and certification of live birth.

Another story written by the Kansas City Star.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Guns, guns, guns!

With Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's recent veto of gun legislation which would allow conceal and carry on a college campus, gun debates have re-entered political discussion after a reprieve for debate over budgets, unions, abortion, and gay rights.

Looking at "pro" vs. "anti"gun arguments, one most recognize and understand the complexities of the debate. To me, there should be a clear distinction between my personal desire to eradicate all guns from civilians, and my understanding of the 2nd amendment, which I think would reasonably allow for personal gun use in home for safety purposes and for hunting. With that, it is important to note the vague wording of the 2nd amendment, while you also look at the context of the time and environment in which the bill of rights was written. A friend brought up an interesting point the other night during a discussion of gun rights and the 2nd amendment. During that time, "bear arms" literally meant grabbing your own gun to use during war or battle. Clearly the U.S. no longer has a civilian army in the same sense as citizens did 250 years ago where men would grab their fire-arms and head off to the front lines.

My personal bottom-line for the entire gun ownership & conceal and carry debate is the lack of statistics proving areas with high gun ownership helps decrease violent crime. And I believe the statistical data is absent for good reason! To me, experimenting with gun-ownership and its purported minimization effect on crime is not a risk I, (or I believe anyone) should be willing to take. The supposed benefits of potentially lesser crime does not outweigh the dire consequences and risk of substantially more crime with more people holding guns.

Lastly, I have heard the argument that individuals with conceal and carry licenses are "rational", and the streets would be safer if more "rational" people went through the "rigorous" process of obtaining a conceal and carry license. There are two major flaws with that statement. First is with the rationality bit. In no way, shape, or form, does an applicant for a conceal and carry license go through a cognitive test or mental evaluation determining their level of mental health and wellness. So how does one know exactly how "rational" the applicants are compared to any other rando on the street? True, you must go through a background check, get fingerprinted, and take a gun shooting and safety class, but those things clearly have nothing to do with your mental psyche. As we saw with the tragedy in Arizona with gunman Jared Loughner, the issue of mental illness and gun-ownership was raised, and many lawmakers are questioning the screening process for purchasing and owning guns. Secondly, is filling out an application, getting a background check, your fingerprints taken, and a class on gun safety all that rigorous?? I honestly did exactly that and more for my Teach for America application. (Minus the shooting practice at a range -- supplement my experience with webinars and trainings on how to teach).

I could honestly go and go with this discussion, but here are my main points:


  • Guns shouldn't be allowed on college campuses. EVER. Unless you are a trained police officer
  • Because they are solely designed to kill, people should be very wary of loosening restrictions on gun ownership anywhere.
  • The risks of more violent crime do not outweigh the potential benefits of lower crime in areas with high gun ownership or loose gun regulations
  • There should be more restrictions on gun ownership and use
  • Guns should only exist within your personal space (home) and in relation to hunting
  • Guns are DANGEROUS, and this issue should NOT be taken likely. We should not assume the good in everyone, and be naive enough to believe that if someone went through the process of obtaining a license, they are "rational" and smart people using guns for the sole purpose of protection.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

My TFA Countdown...The Beginning of a TFA Blog

Almost 4 months ago, my life and career path for the next two years was changed drastically. On January 18th, 2011, I was officially accepted as a Teach For America corp member, and was tentatively assigned to teach highschool English in Dallas, Texas. No words can express the happiness, the shock, the confusion, the joy, and the bewilderment I felt all at once when I received my congratulatory email while I was in the computer lab. I wanted to shout out, to tell someone close to me -- but I knew no one in the computer lab. DILEMMA. So, I did what most millennial generation college students do: I told Facebook. The next week was a flurry of congratulation emails, Facebook messages, text messages, phone calls, and emails. I was on top of the world. (I'm still on top of the world btw)

But then the difficult part came: realizing exactly how much preparation this was going to take. Not only am I preparing myself mentally for one of the biggest challenges and most important experiences of my life, I have to spend hours pouring over test preparation material and teaching texts. Not to mention classroom observations! I may be slightly overwhelmed considering all the work I have to complete before graduating, but I know I can do it! I know I will get it done, and I know I will be as prepared as I could be on that first day of induction -- plus a few nervous stomach butterflies, some sweaty palms, and maybe a little sleep deprived from my anxious sleepless night the night before.

For the next two years, I will use this blog to chronicle my experiences with TFA, my school and my students for the next two years. I am so excited for what this experience can hold, and cannot wait to share it all with you!

The Invisible Line between Journalist and Talk Show Host...

Journalist. Talk show host. Brian Waters. Oprah Winfrey. Clearly those two professions are, and should be, very different. But lately, I have seen too many "journalists" acting more like talk show hosts. The world of cable news provides many great examples of this, especially considering the current polarizing rhetoric used in political banter.

In this video, Bill O'Reilly, journalist, author, and show host interviews the President during the 2011 Superbowl. I have never claimed to be a fan of O'Reilly because of his "interviewing" style of interrupt, talk over, and interrupt some more. This interview is certainly set up to seem "journalistic", with pre-written questions and official-looking papers. Watch the video and tell me what you think!



This next video comes from Fox News, and features journalist Neil Cavuto interviewing a Democratic Senator from Texas. Cavuto attempts to "challenge" the Senator on her claims and stance on eliminating debt, but the conversation quickly takes on a much less-professional tone.

Watch for yourself.







And in this last example, ex-MSNBC show host Keith Olbermann goes over his well-known segment of the show, named "The Worst Persons in the World". The entirely subjective segment submits individuals Olbermann finds despicable for various reasons. True, what the individuals did was in fact news -- but is this segment? Or is it just commentary? Is it even tasteful for a news station to broadcast such a segment?




The bottom line here, is that too many journalists have become loose with their behavior, tone, phrasing, etc on television. When viewers go to a news station, its because they want to hear reporting -- not just your personal commentary on what is happening in the world. And even if a viewer is unable to distinguish between political commentary and political reporting, as journalists we should know the difference and strictly adhere to practicing well-known techniques of good journalism.

That's all folks!

Blog or News site??

What exactly separates a personal blog from an online news source? It's a tough question to answer, but as a journalist student at the University of Missouri, I have been taught the last several years to think critically about news and personal commentary. Interestingly enough, within the journalism school, there is substantial hubbub about a 3 senior journalism students' purported news website. The site, called "J-School Buzz" is part of their senior capstone project. Their mission? Report news pertaining specifically to the journalism school. Their critiques? Well, that's a little more complicated. From within the journalism school, there are many students who feel the site shouldn't constitute a capstone project at all, let alone a news site. Reportedly, (and I can say this, because I am in fact writing on a blog) the goal of the site is not really reporting news, but measuring traffic on the site and comparing viewers depending on the article topic. (Entertainment, career/business, etc)

While it is clear many online news sites and the journalism "industry" in general are propelled by ad sales and high traffic as any other "business", their job first and foremost is to provide accurate news to its viewers. So is there a problem with the site's goals, or are the writers/managing directors adhering to a typical business model?

The latest J-school Buzz drama revolves around a physical altercation that occurred in the journalism school. One of the editors was assaulted, and then decided to write about. The same day. Within an hour of the attack. Why? Therein lies the plethora of comments and criticisms from website viewers. The tone and verbage in the "news article" seemed very bloggy, and to be honest, I got a -- as one commenter called it -- hero complex vibe from the story.

The writer was also challenged on his ability to even produce an "objective" news story on a situation where he was directly involved. To which he claimed -- absolutely. I, however, find this impossible. How could you possibly maintain any objectivity in a situation where you are a victim? Isn't that the subjectivity journalists look for in their human sources?? It was bizarre, I find the site bizarre, I find the proposal of this as a plausible capstone project bizarre.

The end.