Education, Health Care and Energy

The consensus seems to be that Bobby Jindal had a tough job to do and he didn't do it too well at all. The audio cutting in and out could not have helped him (unless this happened only in my own home) but the contents of his response to the Obama speech were childish and almost endearing, although the endearing quality got lost when he started talking about the federal government and the old ideologies of the GOP where big government was concerned. He tried to move the anecdotal speech to ideologies and political strong talk but this was lost.

One of the FOX pundits rounded up the opinion of Obama's account of the future for Iraq. This consisted of "winding down Iraq equals winding up Afghanistan." Oh well, one must be aware of all that is being said or not said. Over on MSNBC, Keith Oberman, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews were all positive and upbeat about the speech. Maddow said that "this is the largest tax cut in history." Maybe one day in the future one of these FOX or MSNBC personalities will do something to surprise us - but not today. Everyone is in line where they are "supposed" to be.

MSNBC pundits referred to the beautiful backdrop to the President's speech. It was o.k. The flag is a beautiful backdrop but does it have to be vertical? What is the benefit of that? I would have chosen a different tie for the President. Stripes don't play very well on TV and therefore Joe's tie was more solid and looked cleaner. Interesting how women's outfits really stand out at these events because of their contrast with the dull colors of all the men's suits. Hillary stood out in color probably a little more than needed. Nancy in green closed out the three in a blue, red and green ensemble. I suppose that's o.k. too.

Interesting how President Obama's height was above the other two while he stood even though they were higher behind him. A nice statement of who's who.

I don't know if I'll listen to Rush tomorrow. I feel that I know what he's going to say. Some snide remarks about Nancy's aggressive applauding and continuous trashing of Joe and of course he will pick and pull at the speech. What is wrong with what President Obama said according to Rush Limbaugh? All you have to do is pick any topic from the speech and Rush will be playing with it tomorrow and pulling his millions of viewers with him.

The President launched right into the economy. No messing around. He did the "rally the troops" cry as one would expect and said that we will emerge stronger than before. He had to do some of this and his critics like Rush will analyze this to suit themselves. Preparing us for working with the banks that are being exposed every day (it seems) for corruption, he said that we cannot govern out of anger. We must cooperate to help people not banks, he said.

The three areas he will not cut back on are energy, health and education. It might be interesting to hear what Rush will say about this point. The President went on at length to explain why these three cannot be cut back. He said that health care reform cannot wait another year. I was expecting a cut away to Hillary at this point but I didn't get it on my station.

He has promised in this speech to close Guantanamo, tax those who earn over 250,000, cut taxes for most of the people earning under 250,000, reform health care and get out of Iraq. He stated that the U.S. does not torture. And he will start on the road to economic recovery by getting loans and credit moving again.

FOX stated that it was a 15 minute speech interrupted 65 times. They really put it in perspective. In that 15 minutes a lot of promises were made. Can they be kept?

"I will not allow terrorists to plot against America," he said. One wonders how is he going to do this but I guess he had to say something like this?

President Obama said that it is a "burden and a privilege to govern in these times." One hopes that the man who has hope can handle the burden and the privilege.

Children in Politics

Why put images of children and children’s voices on the media in this fashion? Could adults not ask? Of course they could. But someone somewhere thought that having children ask would be cute or attractive. It is an abuse of our children to have them appear to say words which are really not their own. This is the adults of society using the psychological implications of the innocent child for political gain. And this brings the child into a/the dominant hegemony before being aware enough to think for him or herself.

Look at this:



This seemingly benign use of children is an indoctrination tool being used on the children and then being presented to the public as a spectacle.

Someone in the public then chose to subvert the message through juxtaposing symbols resulting in this collison montage:




We get the point. Don’t we? This media producer sees the correlation between using our children to propose Obama’s presidency and using them to propose Fascism. But who is abused and who is the abuser? Is this how we hoped the shifting of the power of media to the masses would be used? Perhaps some would see fun in this juxtaposition. I see only abuse of the meek in both productions. Through my intuition I feel sick about this use of children in this new “free access” media. When the powerless are used by the powerful there is something off, whether it is on Youtube or Network TV.

Let the kids alone. Let them enjoy their undetermined youth. Should we parade them?




No, we should not parade children in political campaigns. Yes, these depict beautiful moments. Beautiful private moments forever stained by discussions of adult motives:





Is this serious professional journalism? Perhaps they are producing the media which they believe to be desirable? And who are they? Adults.

At least Michelle Obama thinks she should protect her children’s privacy. This is a noble cause but not the whole truth. While talking about protecting their privacy, we see the children in larger than life images behind the hosts of The View:




Children are not intellectual adults. They may have the capacity to ask many pertinent questions (even if done innocently). This use of children is an appeal to the psychological aspect of our fondness for children. Political candidates and commentators use children for these purposes.

In this video, images of young children are paired with a child’s voice-over. Imagine as you listen and view if the images were the same and either John Mc Cain’s or Barack Obama’s voice was the voice-over.



Well, how did you do imagining our (political) adults as the voice instead of the child? Would it have the same impact? What if the video did not invade the privacy of the children in the footage and just showed Obama or McCain explaining their opinion? A novel idea perhaps? Have the candidates speak.

I suggest we get the children out of political fighting. Maybe the candidates will have to come up with more than a 10 second sound-bite.