Blog #1

This is a case that has baffled me. There are inoccent people being killed everyday without any media coverage so why is that different with Trayvon Martin? Is it because he’s black and George Zimmerman isn’t? Is it because Martin was underaged?

In the case for George Zimmerman, he probably wasn’t really that racist. I know he was/wanted to be involved in the Marines, and he has had reports of anger issues. He also grew up in a multi ethnic home and is bi lingual. So he may have had some judgments when he say Trayvon that night, but I do not think he was acting out of racial hate. But I’m not defending him. I think he should be tried to the full extent of the law. But when politicians and media personalities hang him out to dry like they did/ are doing, what does that say about the rest of our culture?

Do we just want to bring murder cases to the public attention when they’re acted between two different races? Is it ok when blacks kill blacks or whites kill whites? Because we don’t here about that. The media looks and Trayvon and sarcastically uses the word ‘Thug’ to demonstrate the state at which we judge people. “Oh, he’s just some thug” would be one example of what someone may say about Martin. And I agree that that is a travesty when citizens label others as such. I think the media should go out and challenge our thoughts on judging people as thugs. But who’s the one uses the label ‘thug’ in the first place? The Media! They created this label for George Zimmerman to use when he shot Trayvon. But hey, anything to get viewers right?

The fact that MSNBC would tamper with police tapes only furthers my point. In no way, shape, or form is the media helping with this case. What are they going to do by stretching these facts? What social problems do they think they’re solving? They are only furthering the divide between races in this country. THIS WILL NOT BRING US TOGETHER, THIS WILL TEAR US APART.

I feel similarly about Politicians, but not necessarily to the extent that I do about the media. I think it’s because we know inherently that politicians will do whatever they can to push their own agenda. It’s not as transparent with the media in our nation. But with selfishness that comes from many politicians, I think good can still come from them pushing their own agenda. Many of them, in my opinion, have pretty fair and decent agendas. If they’re going to make our country thrive, I’m all for it. I don’t see the earth shattering consequences as I do with the media. And that would be me judging to say all politicians are bad. I think Mayor Cory Booker is pretty swell.

All in all, I think when cases like this come to the publics attention, the media and some politicians do more bad than they do good. It’s just so tough when money is involved. It’s almost as if they’re *don don duuun* slaves to money.

But in no way do I support George Zimmerman. Please convict him to the full extent of the law. But don’t do it because the media told you to. Don’t give him any more or less than he deserves, based on what your T.V told you.

Ah, the stadium debate. 

If you enjoy football in the least bit, or if you’re just from Minnesota, odds are you’ve heard something about the stadium. And it’s been a roller coaster of emotions in our lives for the past year. You may recall we had something similar to this three years ago with the Target Field, but it’s quite a bit more intense this time around.

Ok, so we all knew when the lease was up. We all know this stadium is expensive. And we all know we’re going to need a new one. So why are we just trying to finalize plans now? Heck, I don’t even think we have plans to finalize at the moment.

This Eleventh Hour debacle is not new (i.e the State shutting down). We assume we elect responsible adults to manage their time, our tax money and state policies, so why do these issues get pushed to last place, being that many Minnesotans find them pretty dang important? And, for the record, I think the Vikings stadium issue is right up their with the state budget issues. 

I want to switch into the assignment questions but I’ll be back for these thoughts. First off, the congressman who was interviewed on March 9th was incorrect is his approach. I don’t think it’s enough to decide how to vote first, then defend your stance to those who voted you in. I think if congress isn’t constantly responsible for the voice of the citizen then we have a disconnect somewhere. Does this then maybe take more time to come to a conclusion? Yes. Do I think this is necessary for the validity of our state and country? Yes.

So how is this going to improve the speed of our bill passing process? It won’t. Evaluating voters takes time. But the we, the people, are incharge. It is our state, it is our money, it is our football team. Congress is our tool to apply the policies that we want applied. Don’t like it? Tough. We, the People. Oh, and on that whole speeding up the bill passing process? Lets think of some thing we could remove that would speed it up? 1. Instead of talking about the deadline on the stadium, talking about raising your salary 2. Arguing over whether democrats or republics will have their name on the bill 3. Choosing to not talk to the other party because you don’t want to be flexible. I promise the people of Minnesota would rather have a solid plan for a stadium than to pay you to play hardball.

Yes, that got a little off track. But I don’t see where someone gets decides that the voters shouldn’t be involved. Most of us aren’t involved. We haven’t been given a chance to get involved besides the usual voter outlets. So no, I don’t think proposal should be passed without voter consent. I don’t know why we aren’t more involved. Not everyone wants to be involved and that’s fine, but give those of us who do a chance to really be heard. Just because we vote you in does not give congressmen the right to act on their own in my interpretation.  And I really think this will be a more effective process. Why? Because voters don’t filibuster.

This is a topic that I feel I sit right in the center of. I mean that feel both sides have a valid point. We have a political system which in it’s nature is an open electoral process. But we’ve developed a tradition in which the election is pit basically two candidates. You’ll either have a Republican president or a Democrat. And that’s what we’ve all become comfortable with.

In this process we’ve made these parties into two molds which basically require the candidates to run with the parties set beliefs without letting the candidate much of their own beliefs, if ever they think differently. An example of this would be that John McCain was the more the bipartisan before the election period, but during the race disregarded this in favor of the more Republican ideals.

So we rarely see these alternatives in the election arena. The voters are discouraged because they feel that they’ll be throwing away their vote, and the alternatives are told to support whichever party they are closest to, in order to defeat the opposite.

Should we be ok with this? I agree that it many cases that it does feel like a vote is being wasted. It’s almost as bad as not voting at all. But if there ever was a time to shake up the system, now is the time. I believe that more and more people are becoming aware of the situation and genuinely want a change. The support for Ron Paul this election could support that notion. I think this would be a positive for the election field. Shake up the system. See what happens. I’m not saying change everything, but lets explore some options. It’s not like the American people are overall satisfied with the government as is.

The questions that are asked in this first assignment are questions that I’ve been thinking about since we’ve started this course. And I’ve come to the conclusion that our system is dysfunctional. Our system has changed to caring about the parties interests rather than the peoples. We have all these lobbyist changing the goals and needs of our country with money. We as a people our being put on the back burner.

From what I’ve felt and seen in presidential elections is that no, we don’t have a chance for truly great leaders anymore. It seems that anyone who steps out and tries to be a genuine person is shunned by its respective. Elections are about who has the best smile it seems, and hope and change and all the good in world stops at election day. The only way these candidates can be elected is to fill our heads with delusions of grandeur, and when we realize that they can’t capitalize on these promises, we want to immediately vote them out. Politicians are to worried about standing for the wrong thing that they end up not standing for anything.

 

I don’t think it’s losing legitimacy, but i think the American people do see it in decline. It seems like most individuals want to get back the good old days of America. Those days after WWII when we were number one and could be touched. I think people realize that our nation isn’t the same and they’re looking for someone or something that can bring us back to the status. 

 

But Rome is burning faster and faster it seems.

Welcome to WordPress.com. After you read this, you should delete and write your own post, with a new title above. Or hit Add New on the left (of the admin dashboard) to start a fresh post.

Here are some suggestions for your first post.

  1. You can find new ideas for what to blog about by reading the Daily Post.
  2. Add PressThis to your browser. It creates a new blog post for you about any interesting  page you read on the web.
  3. Make some changes to this page, and then hit preview on the right. You can always preview any post or edit it before you share it to the world.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.