Picking apart politics!

Health Care

Barack Obama: Obama proposes that a health plan will be available to all Americans, and that it will be affordable. He guarantees that no American will be turned away because of illness or preexisiting conditions. Obama wants paperwork to be simplified for health care, and wants there to be portability of insurance plans if individuals change jobs. He also believes that children should have mandatory health care coverage, and that coverage under parents plans should be extended till the age of 25. Supporting disease management programs is an important issue to Obama, to help care with chronic illnesses. Patient safety, comparative effectiveness research, and insurance reform are also issues Obama believes need to be monitored/dealt with. Obama wants to lower costs through investments in Electronic Health Information Technology Systems.

Hillary Clinton: Hillary Clinton also wants to make health care more affordable, and wants to improve quality at the same time. She does not believe that there should be any discrimination if people have pre-existing conditions. Clinton believes that tax credits will help make sure that working families dont have to pay a high percentages of their income. She wants health care to be reliable, so that it will exist even if someone changes their job or loses it. Hillary says that she would give tax credits to small businesses.


John McCain: McCain beleives that we need to bring health care costs under control through saving Medicare/Medicaid, providing health benefits to retirees, and by letting companies compete. He thinks that health care money should be put at the hands of individuals so that they can have more control. Access to health care is important to McCain. He wants people that are in all different areas, temorarily or chronically uninsured, and in inner cities to have access. McCain says that patients should have more decisions and responsibility. McCain also wants to reform the tax code to provide people with a tax credit.

Overall i would say that Barack Obama has the strongest solution oriented proposal. His website gave a lot of detail about what he has done in the past, and all of the problems that he wants to deal with. He went into specifics about legislation he sponsored, and act that he has co-sponsored to improve health. His website described many health problems like lead-poisoning, mercury pollution, autism, AIDS, and other issues, and didn't only explain what the problems were, but gave solutions, like strengthening fundings, and reducing amount of mercury deposits. Obama says that "My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness.”
Even though this sounds like a big promise, his solutions of dealing with health issues seem attainable.

The biggest fallacies I found in researching all the canidates' responses to health care is that they use words like "will" and "we can" quite often. These may be too strong of words to use. Saying "we will try our hardest" does sound weaker, but it may be more realistic. Then, they couldn't be punished if something doesn't happen for saying they WILL. Some of the issues were overgeneralized and not explained thoroughly. Some of their promises seem too hopeful and not realistic enough.

1. To John McCain: What do you think some consequences would be if Americans are given the control and responsibilty that you mention in health care?
2. To Barack Obama: You make a lot of promises about universal healthcare being affordable, but how much money are Americans going to end up paying in taxes with the Obama plan?

An organization that would be beneficial for taking part in solution-oriented problems on a local level would be the GMU College Republicans or Democrats. Both groups have many activities for people to be involved. The GMU Republican group is hosting Support the Troops week, and also Gun Rights Week. They have hosted Grover Norquist for Conservative Pride Week and Akindele Akinyemi for Black History Month. The GMU Democrat group has had speakers come to GMU, like Andrew Hurst in 2006. Also, on February 5th, 2007 they hosted a rally for Obama where senator Obama appeared. Information about the groups can be found on their websites. College Republicans & College Democrats. To be more involved upon joining the groups individuals could send letters to the presidential canidates about issues that concern them. Also, they could host more informative events to spread awareness about issues--ie global warming, war in Iraq, health care, education, etc.

To be more specific about health care, the Student Nurse's Association at GMU offers volunteer programs and learning experiences to be involved in health care for the community. An individual may be taken more seriously if they're trying to take a stand on health care if they are part of a group like this. They could speak about the issue, send petitions/letters to health officials.


Becky discussed the uses of energy in her blog. She thought that Hillary came up with ideas that could be very beneficial. For example, Hillary proposed a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund that would give money to investing in alternative energy sources. This Fund would be paid in part by oil companies. Becky thought that John McCain's solutions were vague, and that he didn't give very specific examples of how he was going to address issues. The group that Becky proposed to help get involved is Habitat for Humanity. She said the groups helps the environment because volunteers are used to help build homes for the homeless and poor, instead of having industrial companies buy/use the land for more detrimental things, like factories.

Noor wrote about the Iraq war, and Obama's propositions to help end it. She mentions how he wants to start sending troops back home, but at the same time realizes that he needs to do it gradually. Noor also mentions that Obama was to make sure there is still protection against major threats in Iraq.

Pirates: No Trespassing!

Hi, and welcome to my show! I'm Michelle Bollinger, and today we will be discussing the controversial issue of pirating. It's so easy to get online and download music, videos, and photographs rather then go to the store to spend money on them. Is this convenience worth it though? Recent consequences are causing anger amongst many individuals. Lawsuits are being filed against people for being involved in file-sharing, and people even risk going to jail for illegal downloads. We have invited Jason Schultz, who is arguing for the legalization of file sharing, and Scott Matthews, who will be giving us the opposing view against file-sharing. Lets get started with Jason Schultz. Jason, could you sell me on why file-sharing is such a benefit?

Jason Schultz: Michelle, the number of people having lawsuits brought on them is something that could be prevented. The right to privacy and constitutional right to free speech are being shattered with individuals being exposed for actions like this. There are so many other solutions, like voluntary compulsary liscensing, that could be used to allow artists to still get compensation for their work. College students and adults dont have the money to pay off thousands of dollars of fines. I just dont think it's fair to have such harsh punishments when alternatives could be used instead.

Michelle Bollinger: I see your point Jason. It's intruiged me at how many people are being brought to court over pirating. I never knew the consequences could have such an impact on people's lives! What do you think about this Scott?

Scott Matthews: Although it'd valid to mention how harsh the consequences are, I think Jason is failing to see how serious infringing on copyrighting is. It's against the law to pirate. Since so many people are engaging in file-sharing, it makes it all the more difficult to put an end to. You brought up voluntary compulsary licensing. In order to do that, we need to get the government involved. The government would be able to see everything we listen to and look at. Where's the privacy in that? Plus, many alternatives that have been presented, like monthly fees on music downloaders have not worked to decrease piracy. For all the arguments about privacy and free speech, i dont think that the government getting involved backs up any of those stances.

Michelle Bollinger: You do bring up a great point Scott, about privacy being infringed if file-sharing is allowed. Jason, do you think there is way to keep privacy in file-sharing without letting the government have so much control in it?

Jason Schultz: Yes i do. I dont agree that the government will be as concerned with knowing everything we do and look at as Scott mentioned. The government would be more concerned with making sure that artists recieve the money that they deserve.

Scott Matthews: If people end up paying monthly fees and taxes for artists to recieve their money, i dont think they will realize that this wont be the only thing they're paying for. Much of the file-sharing, in fact around 40 percent of it comes from porn. It would be virtually impossible for the government to make sure every file-share that was being paid for was music, photographs, or video that was acceptable.

Jason Schultz: I agree, it is impossible to make sure that only certain aspects of file-sharing would be allowed. However, I believe that people are always going to have the urge to copy music and videos, so why not come up with a way that still gives credit to the makers of their work that can be legal at the same time?

Michelle Bollinger: Thank you so much Jason Schultz, and Scott Matthews for coming in today. I wish we could talk longer but our time is up! I'm glad i was able to hear both sides of the piracy debate. You both have some really great comments for and against it, and i'm not sure what to root for! Until next time...

Concealed Weapons on Campus

I'm really torn between the two arguments about students carrying concealed weapons on campus. I know that if students have the proper safety training and licensing, then they should be deemed responsible to carry around a concealed weapon. However, the idea that hundreds or even thousands of students would have concealed weapons on campus makes me uneasy. I know most students are rational, and would be extremely careful with their weapon, but it's human nature to be irrational. Some would would feel better protected if more people carried guns around campus, but I'm not sure if I'd feel much safer. I think security on campus should be increased, and that every building on campus should have someone armed in case of an emergency. Maybe videos could be installed in classrooms so that security could keep tabs on the safety of students. Since individuals can be so rash, i would mind if students in my class were carrying guns, although i guess i wouldn't technically know. I would probably be more worried about chaos breaking loose in class and someone shooting off their gun than i would be about focusing on a class lecture. My family doesn't have guns in the house, unless you count our paintball and BB guns. I've always felt protected in my house without a gun, so i don't know why we would ever need one. I feel secure in my neighborhood, but i do recognize that violence can happen anytime. If my family grew up in a higher crime rate area, enjoyed hunting, or if my parents were cops, i may have a different perspective about guns.
If guns were allowed on the George Mason campus, then those he had them should have to go through rigorous safety training twice a year, have health screenings to ensure their mental stability and also a registered/licensed gun owner.
I believe that the strongest argument in favor of concealed weapons on campus is from a video on the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus website (http://www.concealedcampus.org/). In an interview from The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet, a student that was shot during the Virginia Tech shootings spoke about the tragedy. Also, a man discussed how if guns are allowed on campus, events like this could be better prevented. I found this to be a strong argument because most people would not want a school shooting to occur, and would want to find a way to decrease the victims of a shooting.
A weak example that i found for carrying concealed weapons is from the CNN video. A man stated that because he is a wheelchair, he is an easy target. Also, he mentioned that he locks up his gun and is not some "trigger happy redneck". I do not agree with the fact that if someone is in a wheelchair then they are an easier target. If someone wants to go on a shooting rampage on a college campus, they are probably more concerned with finding people that have harmed them emotionally, or that they want to get revenge on. Shooters are also random though, and at the same time so concerned with making headlines so they shoot as much people as they can. You don't have to be a "trigger happy redneck" to become furiated and want to shoot someone. People that seem normal may have completely disturbed thoughts and plans.
The strongest argument in favor or prohibiting concealed carry weapons on campus is that it could increase violence. Guns could be accidentally shot, people could be distressed or angry and result to using their guns instead of solving a problem in a much less violent way (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0418/p02s02-ussc.html ) A weak argument is that "Colleges are too crowded to safely allow the carry of concealed weapons." (http://www.concealedcampus.org/arguments.htm). So many people already carry guns in crowded areas like movie theaters and office buildings, which hasn't caused many problems yet. I do not think that teachers carrying concealed weapons would be any different from students. Most students in college are able to logical as reasonably as teachers can. There are some pretty wacky professors, and wacky kids. The positive aspect of a teacher carrying would be that one person would have control of the situation and that all the students wouldn't have to take out their guns. But what happens when the shooter kills the teacher first? The Second Amendment includes the right to bear arms, which has been interpreted many different ways. Some argue that it's individual, which is the right to bear personal weapons, and some say it's state, which means it's strictly for the militia. My reference is from a law website for legal professionals (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/). I do not believe that the Second Amendment is a sufficient enough reason to allow students to carry concealed weapons. I think extensive training for carrying a gun need to be considered, and also in-depth background checks should be necessary.

We Shall Overcome

1. Title: "Jimmy Crow"
Genre: Rap
Explanation: This song would explore racism against blacks, hispanics, asians, caucasians, etc. that would influence listeners to see the commonalities between them, and understand how much knowledge individuals of different cultures can gain from eachother. The lyrics would be harsh and profane at parts, using clips of people being called deragatory terms such as "spic", "cracker", etc. to allow listeners to see how hurtful the terms really are.

2. Title: "Practice what you preach"
Genre: Punk
Explanation: This song would confront religious intolerance that exists in America, despite the common goal of America to embrace differences. It will also explore how most religions teach compassion to others regardless of their background, and many individuals remain one-sided and don't practice what they preach. Snipits of parts of laws about tolerance would also be included in the song.

3.Title: "Drinking to Death"
Genre: Hip-hop
Explanation: The health problems associated with binge drinking, specifically among teens and young adults would be examined in this song. The song would be set up as a story, about a relationship between a boy and a girl where one was slowly drifting away from the other because they favored drinking over their relationship. The climax of the song would be when the individual died from binge drinking, and the song would explain the details of the funeral and that the death could have been been better prevented.

4.Title: "Gasses from their asses"
Genre: Experimental
Explanation: Alternative forms of energy are more common than they seem, and can be found in your local park or backyard. This humorous song would discuss how animal feces can be turned into gas for cars. It would also explain how this resource is not unlimited, and would be extremely benefictial. Animals sounds would be incorportated subtly for laughs.

5.Title: "We're sorry"
Genre: Country
Explanation: The devastating issue of child abuse would be shown in this song through lyrics between a father and his little girl. There would be two parts to the song, first the young girl's who would explain how no matter what she does, it's not right to her father. The father would explain his frustration with work, his wife, life in general, and express how he lets out his anger on his daughter. The end of the song would be through the mother of the family, who ends up loosing her husband and daughter. Abuse killed the daughter, and the father's guilt caused him to commit suicide. This song would advocate awareness of abuse, and dealing with it as soon as possible. "We're sorry" speaks for all the children abused who dont have a voice

6.Title: "Annihilate"
Genre: Hardcore
Explanation: Suicide remains to be a common cause for death. This song would follow the emotions of a teenager who wanted to end their life because it seemed easier than trying to work through it. The song would start off with an angry tone, but progress to a calmer and more reasoned one, where the individual realizes they will be gone forever if they commit suicide. Not only will they destroy their life, but will also destroy the hearts of their loved ones.

7.Title: "Thinspiring"
Genre: Pop
Explanation: The seriousness of eating disorders would be examined in this song. Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia Nervosa consume many teenagers lifestyles, and a common reason for their low self-esteem is the media. The struggle between a teenage girl and her boyfriend would explain the opposing views. The boyfriend would constantly tell the girl how beautiful she was, but the girl would never see herself as good enough. The girl would refer to popular icons in the media that she wants to be like.

8.Title: "Intervene the Genocide"
Genre: Alternative Rock
Explanation: This song would focus specifically on the genocide in Darfur, and the need for action to discontinue it, and prevent future genocides. It would mention past genocides, like Rwanda and The Holocaust. Politics and ethics would be discussed, and questions of why certain discriminations happen would occur throughout the song.

Lyrics to "We're Sorry" (# 5)
Daughter:
Do you hate me daddy?
'cause i still love you
I never meant to be bad.
It's all my fault daddy.
It's hard to pretend not to be sad
I'll try not to interrupt you to show you my artwork,
and i'll remember not to say anything when mommy thinks you're being a jerk.
Your kicks and punches hurt so much.
I wish i didn't have to lie about why i have a crutch.

Dad:
I thought life would get easier, but it's all a pain
You, my child, make me insane
Mom never stops worrying about the bills
My boss overloads me with work i cant find time to do
You push me to the end after such a long day
I wish you'd leave me alone
You still love me even when i hurt you
That's why the abuse is so easy to overdo

The video for this song would show the perspective of the child at school, then at home when her father's pressures are let out on her. It would also show the father's perspective, and follow him from the morning to late at night, when he's stressed out the most. Bruises and marks on the girl would progress through the video, and the final scenes would be the most violent abuse on the daughter, where she is killed, then the father would kill himself. The final scene would be a funeral from the perspective of the grieving mother.

Album Title: "We Shall Overcome"

CD cover: My CD cover would have a black background with a single mountain and white text going up the mountain saying "We shall overcome" in Times New Roman, in a gradually increasing font size(text on the bottom of the mountain will be small, but get larger as it reaches the top) . The text will look disoriented and scattered on the mountain, but will eventually lead to the top, which will show the ability to overcome a problem.

Religion becoming pop-culture

I think that this idea of religion becoming pop-culture should be compared to religion in politics. I do not think that politics and religion should be so closely intertwined, and think that some people have taken their religious beliefs to a point where they are not "practicing what they preach", but instead competing against other people with hostility and are lacking compassion, a virtue that most religions teach.
Pop-culture and religion are also becoming too closely related. Apperal with "Mary is my homegirl" and "Jesus is my homeboy" seems degrading to the relationship one is suppose to have with whichever higher power they believe in, but in this case it is God in the Christian faith. Most religions teach a close-knit and personal relationship with their diety, but referring to them as "Homeboy" is taking it too far.
The visual rhetoric of this shirt makes Jesus or Mary reachable and personable to people in a humorous way. Calling them "homeboy" is saying that they are a cool, hip friend of yours. I dont see much middle ground in this argmuent, like Paul Mitchell. It could be argued that they're just t-shirts and images and it shouldn't be taken that seriously. However, I grew up with a religious background, and see that religion is a serious commitment. How can such a spirtual relationship and deep commitment be simplified down to a statement as simple as "Jesus is my homeboy"? I think it would be more influential and a little less commercial to have an image of Jesus on the cross, bloody and tortured. This would should the seriousness of believing in a religion. I've seen this appeal to the masses method used a lot lately. I once visited a church that hooked prospective church-goers with entertaining games, like "Who can finish this can of Spam the quickest". Seriously, what does this teach about religion?
Mitchell said "What disturbs me is that the Christian love them too (referring to the t-shirts). This is alientating Christians and calling them gullible. Some Christians and forms of Christianity could be trying to appeal to teengers and young kids to make them see that you can have a real relationship with Jesus, like you do with your friends. It could be argued that this is the hook to lead people onto a deeper relationship, where God is put first in ones life.
If this shirt only contained the text the impact would be less controversial. The image makes the argument more of a parody. If the letters were Gothic styled instead of bubbled, the t-shirt may be viewed as more serious and less commerical. Although, i still dont think the text can effect the content to anything truly serious.
The image's role makes Jesus and Mary seem like just another ordinary person. I do see the image as a parody. All the images are all too over-used, like the halo above his head. The positioning of his hands look holy, like he's trying to offer something wonderful to someone, and in this case it's him, which seems selfish when he is suppose to be selfless.
I wish this didn't sound so stereotypical, but a black t-shirt would makes me think of a punk-rocker wearing this shirt because he/she thinks it's funny. Black would connotate sin, and white forgiveness in the religious sense, but i dont think the shirts would stand for that. It would seem more ironic saying that religion is black and white, when it's really not. A yellow shirts may be more bubbly and i can picture more Christians wearing it to be cutesy.

One Track Mind?

My intial reaction to Kelly's disqualification was shock. Our country is extremely diverse, with people of many differnt religious and ethnic backgrounds. From an ethical standpoint, diversity is suppose to be embraced. If anyone has a religion that's not the 'norm' of the country, they should not be shunned or disqualified from a race. Rules are broken all the time, and there should be leeway, or a reconsideration of rules for someone who 'broke' a uniform dresscode.
I think that this disqualification constitutes religious discrimination, but that it wasn't completely dilberate. The referees/judges should be more sensitive and pay more attention to the details of their decision. Since other individuals were disqualified for not following uniform code, this shows that no one was deliberately trying to point fingers at Kelly. However, Kelly should have the right to wear her head covering if it's against her own religious beliefs not to. Since there are standards, i feel like those disqualifying her may not be trying to shun her, but are just following the rules. Following the rules isn't always just, and definitely doesn't allow of change. Isn't that why we as citizen of the United States have the right to propose changes for laws/rules if they're not fair?
If i were to write an argumentative essay on this decision, i would need more information about what the other members were disqualified for exactly, and their backgrounds. Was it really just a matter of not being in uniform color or was there more to the decision? I would also like to know how well the rules were set and if they were read and given to the members of the track team so that they understand what's allowed and what will cause them to be disqualified. Also, can the rules be altered or changed if someone protested them?
Rogers stance was not very well defended when looking at what Kellys mom said about his statement "Every sport has uniform rules. It has nothing to do with religious discrimination. They were provided with several options that would have allowed her to run without taking off her head covering" (qtd. in Goldenbach). Kelly's mom mentioned that these options were not even discussed till after the race. To me, Rogers use of the word "nothing" makes it seems like he's worried about defending himself and that there could have been religious descrimination. However, maybe she did just need to wear a white shirt over her outfit, and that would have been a simple solution. This disqualification could have been thrown out of proportion, who knows.
I think that a potential solution regarding implementing track rules would be to allows religious garmets to be worn if desired. Unfortunately, I can see this rule being thrown around humorously with people arguing "it's against my religion to do so and so". Maybe a strict set of standards should be set, or an committee set up to decide what's fair and what's not.
If the single solid color rule was implemented, my response to Kelly's disqualification may change. She could have easily changed the color of her head garmet, as long as it wasn't against her religion, therefore the rule would be more tolerant, but still keep the athletic appearance that the team wants.

Global Warming

Key and Fork
1. "Vegans: Pay no attention" I would try to use something catchy and humorous to get peoples attention. Most people have no clue that food causes global warming.
2. The audience for this ad is vast because everyone eats, so anyone can relate to it. I would target teens and adults in school, because they would be more likely to take the idea into consideration.
3. A good tone for this ad would be one with humor or irony to draw people in, and then conversational with logos and pathos to back up back up the argument and appeal to people emotionally. I could explain how ironic it is that people are concerned with the cars they're purchasing, but they're neglecting to see other isues at hand that they also deal with about three times a day. Many people may not want to read in depth about the science of this issue, but instead get the basic facts about it so that change can be made. Once people realize that what they eat contributes to global warming, they may think twice about their food selections.
4. For the introduction i would use statistics on how much meat/dairy products people eat, how it affects global warming, and compare that to the statistics of transportation effecting global warming.
5. As for location, i would send this to schools and restraunts, and maybe post flyers on information boards.

Greenhouse Effect
1. For a title, i would use something matter-of-fact like "The Greenhouse Effect"
2. The audience that would most likely benefit from this ad would be students and adults interested in global warming.
3. The tone i would use for this would be a scholarly and logos-driven argument, with a lot of research about the Greenhouse Effect. Since the ad is not humorous at all, people attracted to it would probably be concerned with raw data.
4. I would probably write an introduction that states main and important facts about the Greenhouse Effect. Logos would be important for this.
5. I would put information about this in high school books for science classes. If kids were taking a science class, they would probably be tested on information like this, so it would be benefitial to have evidence about it, and a visual example.

Shark Lunch
1. "We're disappointing the sharks"
2. I would try to appeal to adults and teenagers, because they would understand the comedy of it and probably be interested in it.
3. The tone i would use for this would be satirical and humorous. I would discuss how the ad causes viewers to laugh because the sharks have no hope in getting 'food'. I would also talk about the serious nature of it, and how levels of water are affecting animals, not only sharks.
4. For an intro, i would most likely use statistics about the levels of water that's rising because of Global Warming, and how it's affecting animals.
5. I would put this in the washington post comics, because it has such a large spectrum of viewers.