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.

Right Wing and Obama

It is a known reality, in media studies, that people tend to expose themselves to media that support their own ideologies. One might be forgiven for thinking that this is acceptable and a sign of normalcy but I contend that it is the weakness of most media outlets that the audience is not exposed to opposing views within the one broadcast often enough.

I happen to believe that the media is not here to form our ideas but to let us view/hear all of the opposing ideas. If we are not open to hearing opposing views to our own, then what is the point of viewing or hearing anything? Just to have our own ideals set in concrete? I think we need to be open. But if we are not then the media should challenge us to defend our own ideologies against a balanced rendition of the realities rather than allow us to relax into complacency.

Most media stay on one course and therefore they command their own lucrative audience. It is a pity. To overcome this we must expose ourselves to the opposing "media views."

In this desire for balance I frequently listen to talk radio. One can slip into the comfort zone of listening to the stations that support one's own ideas. One must be vigilant. In the San Francisco Bay Area I can listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and (Dr.) Mark Levin on KSFO 560 AM. On KNEW 910 I can treat myself to Michael Savage and his ideas. I have said over and over again that if you want to discuss media and ideology and the U.S. you must take these players into consideration. They command such an audience that they are important whether we like it or not.

With the aura of Obama adoration in the air, it was somewhat real to hear them talking him down. Dare I say that they have preempted what must follow. Obama must be removed from his pedestal. He cannot keep this adoration for too long as president? The public will pull him down? The collective, not just the right wing, media will knock the pedestal off its balance sooner or later.

A talk radio host shocked me in one instance. One commentator said that it was in bad taste for the press to field tough questions at Obama when he visited them at the White House. What did he expect? It seems he expected them to welcome him and ignore the tough questions. He should be smarter than that.

I suggest that he visit the press offices of the White House regularly and openly and that he take questions. Is it really so unreasonable to expect our technologically savvy president to visit the press and accept/answer questions regularly. After all the press is there to "represent" the public and report back to us? Why would our newly elected president want to NOT talk to the press and answer any questions?

And we must do our part by listening to the media's rendition of the president's answers from many different media sources. Then we must make informed deductions.