TelePrompTer-in-Chief? (Part 2?)

Why does the American public have selective memory when it comes to party affiliation. Republicans like to mock President Obama using a the TelePrompTer and stuttering and stumbling his words when he is not -in essence, saying that he cannot create an original thought on his own. That's fair. However, wasn't that the case as well with President Bush by liberal rivals?

I sympathize with President Obama and President Bush. Not to make any accusations, but I myself have a speech impediment. Anyone who has ever seen me in class or personal discussion knows that I stumble over my words. I take pauses looking for words, I use interjecting phrases like "umm." I am not a good public speaker. I am, however, a rather good writer. I know the point I am trying to make. However, I jump back and forth from thought to thought and, in the end, clean it up so it all flows together. (This, among many reasons, is why I am not a good debater, or, for that matter, interviewee - as was the case a few years ago when I was questioned by a Newsday reporter about a dredging project in my town.) Right now, this is my 2^nd paragraph; I have the first two sentences of what will likely be my 3^rd paragraph already in place.

What we see on CNN, of course, is not the full interview. It is 8 seconds! How much of a cohesive, coherent, and concise argument can you make in in, say, 2 or three sentences? For that matter, how fast can you contemplate an argument/response that will fit into that 8 second time frame that will leave a lasting impact on the audience that will not be lost in the shuffle of the day's news cycle? It is a skill that I, for one, have yet to have mastered. When you give a speech, you want something that focuses on your directed audience, but still is quotable in a larger context. How often have we seen quotes taken out of context hurt politicians? Each sentence has to, in itself, be independent of all of the others, but still work together when combined.

(Think of my reasoning like this: the speaker is a squad leader in the Army; each sentence is a soldier in the squad; you, as the squad leader expect from you troops that they work well independently and as a group.)

Okay, maybe using a TelePrompTer versus some paper was a poor choice when speaking to school children, but, honestly, when you insult someone for not being a good public speaker, try to consider how hard creating political soundbites can be.

I'm Not Complaining, Why Are You?

Right now, I am watching what may be my all-time favorite West Wing episode: Isaac and Ishmael. The story is simple: the White House is on lock-down and a group of high school students are taught about the origins of fundamental Islam by the various characters. The episode was made in response to anti-Muslim sentiments following 9/11.

One of the first stories I heard on the news this morning that Attorney General Holder is thinking of holding some of the Al Quaeda terrorists on trial in Brooklyn. The court house for United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is mere blocks from my apartment. If you exited my building on the Cadman Plaza West side, crossed the street, and walked through Cadman Plaza Park (which is roughly the width of Eddie's) and you would be at the court house. Heck, I can see the court house from my bedroom (I would have a better view if the trees were chopped down, but whatever).

My mother works mere blocks from the Southern District court house, where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks- will be tried.

Protectors across the country are protesting these people being put on trial in American courts. One of their fears is that the people in the area will be put in harm's way. Guess what? Me and my family will be in harms way. And I have no problem with it. From the get-go, I have been for putting these terrorists on trial.

A few weeks ago, I asked my conservative Republican father what his thoughts were about the trials. He responded, "we are Americans. That's what we do." I tweeted this line and it was retweeted by the University of New Mexico's College Democrats chapter.

The night of the 9/11 Attacks, President Bush said "America was targeted for attack because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining." How can we keep that light aglow if we don't give even our enemies due process? Hell, we did so for the Nuremberg Trials.

What makes the Holocaust truly different from what happened on that summer day in September 2001? Both were systematic. The only difference were the races/religions of the majority of the victims and their nationality. Suddenly, are we saying "if you kill millions of Jews, you get a trial; but, if you kill thousands of our people, you get a military tribunal"?

What are these protectors truly protesting? I will be in harm's way, but I'm not complaining. There goes public safety. They don't deserve a trial? Denounce the Nuremberg Trials and then we'll talk. They could get off? A jury of New Yorkers, really?

I know this card has been played once too many, but I think it is just another reason to oppose the Obama Administration.

I want to leave you all with this: (warning: if you are not a Star Wars fan, just stop here) Negelecting any love stories, Anakin Skywalker learns that Emperor Palpatine is the Sith Lord. Anakin says that Palpatine deserves a trial for his betrayal of the Republic. Mace Windu says that Palpatine is too dangerous to be left alive. Would you kill Palpatine because he betrayed the public and openly admits it or would you let him stand trial?





Here's another one: from Thank You For Smoking




I have yet to have heard a philosophical argument about 9/11 (minus Acts of War versus Crimes), but I think this explains the true underlying argument within our hearts.

Catholics vs Obama

Oh, how this story seems to keep on playing endlessly. I just saw this video:



For those of you that have been living on a rock for the past two months, conservative Catholics are angry that President Obama is speaking at Notre Dame. Why? Because he is 'pro-abortion.' First off, NO ONE IS PRO-ABORTION! Being pro-choice means that the decision is not up to you, but up to the decider. Morality is a personal thing (anyone that has ever read Kant would know that); I have personal morals that some people may not follow (like, how I make it my duty to always wish friends 'Happy Birthday' -something that not everyone can agree with or could follow). That duty can only be a moral if everyone can follow it. Well, on the issue of abortion, to begin this argument, only women can choose that.

Second off, these people that oppose Obama speaking never seemed to have a problem with conservative speakers that are -if you weigh it- more opposed to Catholic Social Teaching. (I am working on a more extensive blog post on that very topic, which is forthcoming.) The argument is that since Obama is pro-choice he is opposed to fundamental Catholic beliefs. Maybe one, but other issues are just as heavily weighted. Health care, environment, anti-war labor, death penalty, and poverty -all of these are necessary to be consistently pro-life. So, Obama who is wrong on one issue suddenly has more moral baggage than Newt Gingrich (whom spoke at Fordham University last month) whom is wrong on all of the other ones? Why is one life suddenly more precious than another? All of those issues are necessary to sustain life, why does one trump them all? A friend of mine once said "conservatives care about babies up until the point they are born." I will not go so far as to say that, but when I look at the hypocrisy of all of this, I cannot help but feel that he is right.

The radical liberal would say that President Bush is just as wrong as Obama on the life issue because of the War in Iraq. I do not know what to make of that (to make a poor pun, such a weighing is 'above my paygrade'). I doubt that if President Bush spoke at a Catholic University, the Cardinal Newman Society would make it an issue (they certainly did not for Newt).

I will be honest, at face value, I am not consistent on my views on Catholic Social Teaching, but I look at the issues on a more philosophical level that makes the issue more complex -but that explanation is for another time (I blame my Jesuit education).

Media Studies Misses You, Jack

Right now I am watching Anderson Cooper 360 (instead of writing a paper). Dr. Sanjay Gupta is discussing the case of the partial face transplant at the Cleavland Clinic this past December. I ask myself why he declined Obama's offer to be Surgeon General. I know that he wanted to be able to keep working with his patients. But, how many patients can he have close ties with if he is a neurosurgeon and a CNN contributor? Neurosurgies can take hours, but he still does his reports. I guess it is true that you sleep less when you get older.

I begin to think how Kal Penn is now working for the Obama Administration. Two seemingly celebrity-types were approached to work for the President. Certainly, my counterparts on the other side of the aisle will say that this is more proof that he is more of a celebrity than a President. But are the two that different?

Presidents walk red carpets, don't they? Presidents are approached for autographs and photos, right? Presidents have name-recognition, yeah? A celebrity is nothing more than someone that is widely popular. So why not use other 'celebrities' to spread your message? Most celebrity-run political movements have several celebrities and few (if any) politicos.

Choosing Gupta and Penn was one of the smartest moves by the President. Why? "Medium is the Message." Every time I think of that Marshall McLuhan quote, I realize how brilliant the father of Media Studies was. I am a believer that Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan are so idolized is that they were first actors. Actors are trained in how to appeal to a certain audience and hone the message that way. The medium -the actor's craft- is the message -the idea or proposition trying to be conveyed. You never see a public speaker say a bold proposition as a first point. It is always the last. The effective speaker begins on a universally accepted proposition and will slowly flow into the proposition. If you do not believe me, watch the 2003 State of the Union; President Bush started on much more 'compassionate' conservative themes that democrats could agree upon and, eventually, highlighted a plan for war in Iraq. His speechwriters were brilliant.

Why not choose celebrities (even if they are b-list) to work for your administration? They, in theory, know how to shape the message so people will get what message is trying to be conveyed. Of course, you do not want to mention what is hot-button issue in one state, but will in a state that is cooler on the issue. Celebrities, from my experience, know how to give concise question answers in some media (like television) and more thought-provoking answers in others (like magazines). One must realize who the target audience is when shaping a message to communicate. Celebrities, likely, know who follow them (like strong women follow Oprah and teeny-boppers follow the Jonas Brothers), so if a celebrity says "I support this candidate because [issue followers coincide with celebrity]," the follower will listen. While typing that last sentence, I wonder if Obama would have done so well if Oprah had not enforced him; since all of time is based on cause and effect, I will never know. Kal Penn certainly knows that stoner-film and medical drama lovers will listen to what Obama, through him, says. I am also sure that Sanjay Gupta would have the same scenario with people that care enough about current events, but do not care to watch
C-SPAN all day out of quickly-induced boredom (like me). Using the proper communicator, people will listen.

Obama was smart in implementing new media in spreading his message. Young people aren't reading newspapers. They're online. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube -Obama used it. It was a genius move. When you want to research a topic, you don't go to a library and go into the card catalog (like our ancestors did), you go do a Google search. A quick search on Obama and an noun would (and still will) reap thousands (if not millions) of results. Chances are, the top hits would be from legitimate sources (including official websites). So, when people wanted to know how Barack Obama stood on an issue, the top hit would be a blog post or a video. I cannot speak for you all, but I read (and remember) almost every website I read (not necessiarly true for schoolwork, however) (which, can make me seem to be a creeper when I accidentally remember what someone posted on Facebook weeks prior -but that is a whole other issue).

I am not saying that the President is manipulative. I am sure that President Obama knows that millions of Americans agree with him on many issues. But, if those people do not know that he agrees with them, they will not vote for him. He is just, strategically, expanding his base.

---

You may be asking why I chose this title for this post. One of the things I am most proud of in my family's heritage is that my (now deceased) second-cousin was Jack Culkin, a man the New York Times dubbed the "Man that Invented Media Studies." Culkin was a protege and close friend of McLuhan. Some of my mother's fondest childhood memories was with Jack. Because of her passing on these stories, I have investigated and, hence, realized how much ourselves is shaped by the media. If I ever run for President, I will be sure to have bloggers and Hollywood-types working in my communications department.

Young Republican rates Obama

Please watch this video and then read my commentary below



This girl does not know what she is talking about.

Firstly, the President is not a celebrity. No one is a celebrity. Celebrity status comes from name recognition and prestige (mostly encouraged by the media -but that is a whole other discussion). So, the guy likes to go to the beach? Is that wrong? Is relaxing and having a good time suddenly a sign that someone is not fit to lead? He likes to play and watch basketball. I cannot name a single President that has not, in some way, not partaken in some sporting activities. The thing that I find funny is that this girl says that the President is not spending enough time working when the last republican president spent more time vacationing than working. If you look at the press releases, Obama is working during the day and relaxing at night. Wait, don't most normal people do that too? Jessica Simpson once called President George W. Bush "a normal guy," adding, "but he runs the country." Honestly, we must remember that all of our elected officials are humans and they have the same emotions, desires, and needs that each and every one of us has. So, to criticize a President for relaxing and having fun every now and then is saying that they must reject their humanity, which is just absurd.

The President himself did not sign-off on Air Force One flying by the Statue of Liberty (nor knew about it for that matter), his military liaison did. And, by all accounts, the President was 'furious' about what happened. (To be fair, NYPD and FDNY did know about it, but the public was not notified.) But what does police violence, if I may ask, have to do with this situation?

As for Guatanamo Bay, Obama had planned to close it since the campaign. In fact, John McCain said that he would close it as well. It was doomed no matter what.

As for signing bills, I am not sure if this girl knows the difference between a bill and an Executive Order. He has not signed that many bills (the biggest is the Stimulus Bill), but he has done a lot of Executive Orders (which can be overruled by Congress). If this young woman wants to change policy, why doesn't she just write to her representatives (or is that too hard)?

I guess this is another manifestation of how uninformed the American populous is.