Hillary Tackles Obama's "Experience"

Here we go again, the Hillary vs. Obama struggle. I found this little number on the Fox News website (interesting sidebar: Fox News is NOT included in the pre-programed Mac "News" favorites tab, something rhetorical in itself). Here, Clinton is commenting on Obama's statement in San Francisco, in which he said he believed "...foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain." You can see for yourself here.

Clinton did not take too kindly to this. She completely rebuked his statement when speaking to Fox News Tuesday morning, claiming to be "shocked." She said that she saw no evidence of his claim, and shot back by saying he was too busy "running for president" to keep up with foreign affairs.

What bothers me is not her outrage, but how at every possible opportunity she interjects some fact about how she knows more about foreign affairs than he does. "I've met leaders from more than 80 countries," she brags. Or, "You know, for 15 years I've been spending a lot of time in other countries."

I find it interesting rhetorically how she takes every opportunity to replace something negative about Obama with something positive about herself. I mean, who wouldn't? He's looking arrogant, and in truth, it's easier to believe that she's more experienced simply due to her history in Washington, and her age. Still, the democratic party seems to be getting a little catty.

I'm not surprised at all to see this on Fox News. This article serves to make BOTH candidates look bad: Obama is taking part in some unnecessary bragging, and Hilary is using it to her advantage. For Fox, this makes them both appear to be taking some cheap shots. I'm sure Fox is eating it up. I just wish these people would focus on policy - not talking crap, so to speak.

American Schools: Full of Bad Writers

As we're all fairly adept writers (being in a writing-based rhetoric class) I found it interesting that this New York Times article reported that only one third of eighth graders are capable of writing at the standardized "proficient" level - and only one in four high schoolers. These results were gathered according to standardized test results from a test given last year. Students previously reported to have "poor" writing skills have showed minor improvement. Apparently, education officials are pleased with the results.

Boys were worse than girls (sorry Linc and Doug), with around 40% of eighth grade girls performing at the "proficient" level and 20% of boys. The trend in schools seems to be that boys don't think writing will be important after they graduate. Overall, 33% of eighth graders are able to write with proficiency. What irritates me about this whole article is that people are pleased with these results. The article reports that these are the best test results ever. I'm glad we live in a country where we can get excited at 33% of our students performing at a proficient level. Aren't these the future leaders of the country we're talking about?

Additionally, the children who did perform well showed no improvement. This, I believe, is due to the educational system's obsession with standardized testing, setting a universal standards that children are expected to perform at, and those performing higher are not given any more challenging material.

Rhetorically, the reaction of officials to these results seems to me like forced enthusiasm in our educational system. We do not want to be disappointed with our children or the school system, so we allow ourselves to believe that 33% proficiency is good enough. Now, I know standardized testing is not necessarily an accurate measure of academic capacity. Nonetheless, the fact that the administration is so happy about this seems a little odd.

One congressman drew laughs when he blamed the lack in writing proficiency on the slow deterioration of the sentence due to fragmented writing through instant messaging and text messaging. Many thought this notion quite absurd. Nonetheless, after attending a school where I was asked on a number of dates through poorly written text messages, I can't help but think that communication skills are suffering in some way.

I wish officials would stop being so happy about mediocrity. Perhaps I'm being heartless here, but I feel like we should be aiming much higher.

7 Year-Old Shooter?

I was browsing around news websites this morning hoping to find an update on all the political drama and I stumbled upon this article about a 7-year-old child who brought 2 loaded handguns to school. Apparently the kid had one in his pocket, as a teacher discovered it when it fell out, and when his locker was searched, another loaded gun was discovered inside.

Naturally, I found this on CNN's website, as I'm sure gun control advocates are all over it. Rhetorically I would expect to find it here, as liberal media seems to support gun control far more than conservative. Personally,  I'm not one for locking guns away from the general public, but this story made me wince. I don't believe the child here is to blame - officials seem to think the child thought it was just a toy. This screams negligence from the adults involved. Wouldn't it simply make sense to keep the guns out of reach of the 7-year-old child?

Apparently the uncle who owned the guns is facing charges of endangerment. It is this sort of irresponsibility that makes be think that some people simply should not be entrusted with dangerous firearms. The problem here is twofold: Adults need to have the foresight to keep guns out of reach of children, and they need to teach kids to leave the weapon alone if they see it. Goodness.

Nonetheless, I'm sure CNN was glad to grab onto this story. More fodder for gun-control arguments, I believe, and a compelling one no matter which side you come from. No one wants to worry about a school shooting until at least middle school, after all.

Tell Me Your Coffee & I'll Tell You Your Candidate

Tuning in to All Things Considered a Sunday story really caught my interest. The name of the story is entitled Dunkin Donuts vs. Starbucks Democrats. http://www.npr.org/templates/

First of all, if I ever wondered what kind of political side this station was biased towards, my wonderment is no more. Every time I tune in to All Things Considered, the majority of the stories are targeted towards the Democrats. A democrat of the country and especially the political delegates as this is that time of year. This story is four minutes and 16 seconds, a very long story comparing the alleged “Obama Starbucks Democrats” to the “Hillary Dunkin Donuts.” The reporter mentions Dunkin Donuts poking fun at the high maintenance and empty promises of Starbucks, mocking their wii-access and comfy couches, trying to parallel the way each delegate feels about each other. The big issue in theis article claims that you can determine what kind of voter you are based on who you buy your coffee from; A big high maintenance place with flamboyant names for drinks that are incredibly overpriced OR a simple cream and sugar coffee, no gimmicks or confusing names about it, the cup is even as simple as it gets. NPR actually takes a stab at Hillary as the reporter says “Customers are looking at the rational factors: the high cost of coffee or Hillary Clinton’s Healthcare plan” inferring that both are incredibly far fetched and ridiculous to most people. The main point of this article is that customers and voters alike are swayed by their emotion, Barack leaving many voters feeling a sense of hope and excitement, while Hillary has more of a secure tone to her campaign and presence. I don’t know if it is fair to say that if I drink Starbucks I will be voting for Obama, but I do think that if politicians studied consumer and voter habits as much as big corporations did, this would be a very smart move. Both candidates could establish their brand more effectively as well as develop better relationships across the board, leading to brand, or in this case “voter loyalty.” If the big companies are doing it and becoming so successful, this could be a great way to further the progress of political candidates in a brand new way never tried before.

Girl Scouts Join the Rhetoric of Change

What is with this "change" thing that people seem to be obsessing over nowadays? It seems no one is satisfied with a single social institution and that the general consensus seems to be that everything needs reform. The Girl Scouts seem to have jumped on this bandwagon, revamping their structure to supposedly attract more people.

This really does seem like an informed decision. A common complaint among young women seems to be that they see the Girl Scouts as being too "girly," with their emphasis on crafts, cookies, and badge gathering. The new system is leaning towards a tougher program - camping out in the cold, learning to things such as change a tire or unclog faulty plumbing. Not exactly the kind of thing I see a bunch of little girls lining up to do - but nonetheless, the goal here is to shape young leaders who can function independently in society. All in all, a good plan, I think.

This reform, however, makes me wonder why the Girl Scouts chose now to change. People are pushing for change in several different areas - the Boy Scouts, the public education system, the military, the war effort, the health care system - so why are the Girl Scouts the ones to fold? Well, perhaps they aren't folding. I can't criticize the change - they do seem to be molding their system to better benefit modern young women. Nonetheless, I find it interesting that they did this now. Maybe they are anticipating future criticism. It seems that nobody is safe, after all. I just hope they keep the cookies.

NPR: May the Fluff Be With You

Often times when I think about NPR expect to see stories on subjects like the war in Iraq or immigration. Typically I think of local news channels giving in to the cheesy medium of the bleeding heart public interest features or the silly little pieces on recent pop culture phenomenon. However on visiting the front page of NPR.org in a small flash window scrolling a few fluff pieces one of which caught my eye. Being a bit of a Star Wars buff (this is the largest understatement in history) I couldn't help but click on a piece entitled "Rejected: 'Star Wars' Merchandise You'll Never Own" next to a picture of a Death Star BBQ Grille. Owning more than my fair amount of Galactic trinkets I was immediately distraught to hear of a potential possibility of more Bantha fodder no longer available. As a parade of forbidden treasures flashed before my eyes I mourned the loss of the Cloud City Lamp and my personal favorite the Jabba the Hutt Bean Bag Chair. It was about this point when it hit me that this was no social news website, but what most consider to be an elite and hard news source. While I do cut down those stories that are fluff, the truth is I probably spent more time thinking about this piece than any real news story all day.

Choosing Sides (less obviously)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/

With the understanding that the news media “should” abide by the standards of objectivity I listened to Jim Lehrer’s “Newshour” and although not nearly as bad and one sided as the FoxNews video we watched in class, there are several hints of who is on whose side. In the beginning of Friday’s news segment the headlines started off as objective as they could be; stats, figure’s and numbers all inclusive of the DOW Jones Industrial Average and how the slump in Wall Street has been affecting everyone, touching on oil and energy. The second headline talked about the nation’s observance of the 5th war in Iraq. Jim Lehrer mentions every negative thing about the war, showing his ”non-objective side”. He says that 4,000 American soldier’s lives have been claimed as well as 90,000 Iraqi lives. This automatically delivers a sad and negative pathos among those viewers who were already against the war, adding more fuel to their fire. On top of this information, he mentions the outrageous figure it has taken the United States to push through on this venture: a big 500 billion dollars. They play a clip of Bush, sounding almost unintelligent on the topic; pausing and mottling his words as if signifying some uncertainties. After this clip, the host Jim Lehrer makes it a point to recognize (as if he thought they were doing justice to this issue) the hundreds of people who protested and all of the students who walked out of class from Universities just to recognize the 5th anniversary of a sad and angry time in the United States. Overall this clip was a good for minutes and one of the longest, especially for the “News Summary” portion of the show. Interestingly enough, the next story was a positive one regarding Obama and his strong eagerness to get into the white house, with promises that this cruel war will only stop if he is elected. He is modeled as almost a superman who will save us from our impending doom of 5 years. The next story discusses the Dalai Lama and all of the violence and tear gas that is just destroying a nation. After this story we touch right back home in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas as the flooding is acknowledged and flight cancellations are mentioned. It seems to me that going from the Dalai Lama and mass deaths to flooding in DFW is pretty far stretched. In the next story gender is touched upon as the infamous Louisiana murder case about the “Black” man killing his wife is told, later Jim reports “Blacks were kept off the jury.” This seems like a very liberal thing for him to say in my eyes. Maybe that is that culture and understood, even his audience quite possibly. The first impression from just viewing the first half of this show is that is more left-winged liberal. And to make the comparison between NPR and CBS, they both strongly gave Obama air time through discussion of his campaign, successes, and speeches. This leads me to believe that the Democratic Party (unlike FoxNews) has a strong hand they play in these media outlets.