Friday, September 7, 2012

Thoughts on final night of DNC...


Closing thoughts on the 2012 Democratic Convention...

*Jennifer Granholm and Joe Biden both gave solid speeches. Granholm's was better received, but Biden's wasn't far behind.

*President Obama's speech was maybe the 3rd best in this year's convention behind President Clinton's and Michelle Obama's...

*I saw several tweets tonight regarding Obama speech that suggested it was a safe speech, the kind you give if you're in the lead and don't want to hurt yourself by saying something silly...

*While President Clinton spent a lot of time on the Affordable Care Act, I'm a little surprised that Obama didn't give it a few more lines that he did.

*The most inspiring moment of the night and quite possibly the convention was Gabby Giffords leading the Pledge of Allegiance. What a story...

*The Democrats finally began to give a coherent explanation on how the Romney/Ryan team's announced plans don't add up. To hammer home that you can't reduce the deficit by lowering taxes on one class, and asking a less able class to pay for them. All while you increase defense spending to never before seen levels. It defies logic...

*Glad to see the President say "Climate change is not a hoax."

*Having watched both conventions, I'm trying to find an argument to say the Republican's was superior in some way to the Democrats. It wasn't is my final answer.

*While the GOP has a deeper pool of up and comers, the Democrats have the All-Stars right now...

*The GOP's main goal was to reintroduce Mitt Romney to the American people and polish up his image and make him seem a warmer type man. I don't think Romney got much of a boost from his convention. More than "hey, he's a pretty good guy" I think the takeaways for most people were, "wasn't Clint Eastwood great/terrible?" And, "Why didn't Romney say anything about the troops?"

*The Dems main goal was to portray President Obama as a Commander in Chief and as a strong leader. There's nothing I can identify from this week that suggests...remotely...that the convention wasn't a clear cut success for the Democratic Party.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Thoughts on second night of DNC...

A few thoughts on the second night of the Democratic National Convention...

*Former President Bill Clinton nailed his speech. Covering many issues, Clinton eviscerated the Romney/Ryan agenda one by one with a big dose of plain talk.

*Elizabeth Warren started slowly but got better as she went along. I can't imagine that her performance tonight will have much of an impact on her Senate race in Massachusetts. 


*Sandra Fluke was probably the most polarizing speaker of the night. Depending on your point of view, she's either a role model for all young women or an example of entitlements run amuk...

*The line of the night was President Clinton's on Paul Ryan: "It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did." 

*The roll call vote process is pretty painful to watch, with each State claiming its own greatness...

*I have to emphasize how much Clinton focused on actual policy as opposed to rhetoric. That, I think, may move the needle on many undecided voters. 

*The energy level for the second night didn't seem to match the opening, until the last speaker, that is. President Clinton was as well received as Mrs. Obama seemed to be. I suspect tomorrow night will be a little different with both VP Biden and President Obama speaking in prime time. 

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Thoughts on opening night of DNC...


Some quick thoughts on this evening first night of the Democratic National Convention...

*Lily Ledbetter, Duval Patrick and Michelle Obama each nailed their speeches. Absolutely...

*Rahm Emanuel, Cory Booker and Julian Castro were ok, nothing exceptional...

*Safe to say, the audience make-up sure looks different than it did at the RC last week...

*If there was any question would the Party try to run away from "Obamacare," none remains. No excuses, they're holding it up as a strength, not a weakness...

*I'm not sure what was gained by the Democratic National Committee by removing any mention of the word "God" in the party platform. Intellectually I'm fine with it, but the optics are bad on this one...

*Mrs. Obama's speech was every bit as good as Mrs. Romney's...Both were very, very well done and both will be virtually meaningless on Election Day...

*Tonight was Ladies Night at the DNC...

*Castro had a great line: "You can't be pro-business unless you're pro-education."

*Plenty of mentions / praise for Military tonight...



Sunday, September 2, 2012

2016: Obama's America - A review...

I fulfilled a promise this morning.

I went to the movies and watched Dinesh D'Souza's film, 2016, Obama's America. The friend, a staunch conservative had encouraged me to watch the movie a week or so ago, so that I might learn more about "...exactly who Obama really is."

The theatre was the Cinemark Miami Valley located in Piqua, OH. This is in Miami County, OH and for perspective, this County voted 62.23% in favor of John McCain and 34.67% for Barack Obama in the 2008 General Election. It is an agricultural and factory work, conservative, heavily Caucasian, Christian area. I had no illusions that there would be many Obama supporters there. For the early bird showing today, there were about 30 people in the audience. All whites, mostly between the ages of 45 and 70. I spoke briefly with the General Manager of the Cinema, Joe Swietzer, who informed me that the movie is drawing as they expected, which was fairly modestly. It was meeting the projections they had set for it. No more, no less. Swietzer confirmed that it was catering to older audiences.

The movie ran 89 minutes long. It was beautifully filmed and scored. As the film took us to places like Kenya, Indonesia, etc., the cinematography was exquisite. The soundtrack and background music was culturally authentic and was expertly recorded. *(Corrected) The director of the film, Dinesh D'Souza, makes his debut in this film, worked with producer Gerald Molen, who's work is widely regarded with such credits to his name as "Schindler's List," "Jurassic Park," and "Rain Man." 

(*A bit of a botch-up here. This sentence, as pointed out to me by a reader, was missed during the proof-reading process and was quite simply wrong. D'Souza isn't an esteemed film maker. The original, mistaken line is here: The director of the film, Dinesh D'Souza, is widely regarded as an esteem film-maker and craftsman. Mea Culpa.)

I will say that from the beginning frames of the film I found the use of the images and music to be constructing  an ominous tone. As a professional musician myself, it is not difficult to transmit emotions via music and of course, images. If there had been no dialogue in the movie whatsoever-just a series of images-the clear message of this film would have been one of danger and fear. Make no mistake, this was never meant to be an impartial film. D'Souza has a message and a perspective to convey and he did so with a very high level of execution. Production wise, this is a powerful film for its type.

Now to the content. The basic premise of the film is that America in 2008 was a nation of a mostly unsatisfied electorate, who badly wanted something different in their Presidential leadership. Barack Hussein Obama was that "something different." Simply put, a black man with a relatively short public record was able to charm the voters into handing him the highest office in the land. The film suggests that it was far more of a seduction than anything intellectual that propelled him into the White House. D'Souza spends the first half of the movie transcribing a timeline of sorts of Barack Obama's origins, including those of his father, which is a central theme throughout the film. We are introduced to the life and ideology of his father in Africa and Hawaii and some of the anti-colonial people he circulated with. The seeds of Obama future plans to essentially downsize America into an "equal partner in the world", we are told, are planted during this time.

We're then introduced to several key figures who have been influential in Obama's life other than his father. We meet Frank Marshall David, Bill Ayers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, etc. and all the baggage that goes with those names. I suggest interested readers google any of those names and decide for themselves how clear and strong are the alleged connections with Obama and how they are, according to D'Souza, heavily influencing the trajectory of a second term for the President.

The premise that a young man growing up without a father, is under some natural compulsion to pursue an approval of sorts, albeit symbolic in nature. Certainly growing up with out a father has an impact, but whether one believes that Barack Obama was so effected by this absence in his formative years, that he cunningly devised a long-term strategy to exploit his situation and use it to become President is up to the viewer to decide. D'Souza would have you believe Barack Obama is the greatest sleeper agent in the history of the world.

I don't dispute most of the factual information presented in the film. I have major reservations and outright issues with how some of these facts are interpreted. Again, there's an agenda with this film. The mission statement for this film might well have been, "...let's make a movie, based on real life events and relationships. Let's twist many of these events to serve our narrative. That Barack Obama is out to fundamentally transform  our Country into something most of us wouldn't recognize. Let's construct enough scary and foreboding scenes and images in the film that for the person perhaps on the fence, this might give them enough emotion input to push them our way."

This film is not a mind-changer, in my opinion. Only the most non-discerning, uncritical viewer would likely walk away feeling NOW they know the rest of the story about Obama. It is 89 minutes worth of one film-makers explanation of the life and motives of the President. For those who already dislike Obama, this film is an affirmation. For those who support the Obama, it is most likely a bit of an unfair hatchet job. For many in the middle, we'll see. Those who can realize when their emotions are being played upon will have a very different reaction than those who can not.

I have to imagine, any accomplished film-maker with a comparable budget and resources that D'Souza had, could easily create a similar production depicting Mitt Romney as an evil man, who is setting out to damage America. I'd put this movie in the same class of much of Michael Moore's work and the internet film, "Three Things About Islam". Some truth, some lies, some unfairness. In a theme I find myself repeating quite often of late-the burden is on us as consumers of information to develop our senses enough to know the difference between pablum (i.e. baby food) and prime rib. Not all food is the same, nor obviously is cinema.

In summary, I felt 2016: Obama's America was a well crafted, deliberately mis-leading production with rather large simplifications of various facts. If what you want is easy to swallow content that plays to a certain narrative, this is what you got. If you were looking for a more intellectually honest examination of Barack Obama's history and ultimate intentions, you'll not find that here.

Sources:

http://www.miamicountyelections.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94&Itemid=130


President Obama at Ft. Bliss: Unwelcome? (Or, what happens when we buy our news from a drug dealer...)


Was President Obama's speech to soldiers at Fort Bliss in Texas a flop? Was he unwelcome?

I ask because on Saturday, I saw the following story  from Red Alert Politics posted on a friend's facebook page. They had picked up a story from The Daily Beast. (Both are self described Conservative publications.)  The headline read as follows:

Obama speech to soldiers met with silence

(An excerpt from the story...)

President Barack Obama was greeted with fleeting applause and extended periods of silence as he offered profuse praise to soldiers and their families during an Aug. 31 speech in Fort Bliss, Texas.
His praise for the soldiers — and for his own national-security policies — won cheers from only a small proportion of the soldiers and families in the cavernous aircraft-hangar.
The audience remains quiet even when the commander-in-chief thanked the soldiers’ families, and cited the 198 deaths of their comrades in Iraq and Afghanistan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The friend, who I will not reveal the name of, wrote an intro to this linked article...It read,  "And WHY would anyone, especially soldiers, be cheering for this 'Commander in Chief"? I personally applaud their silence, as it sent precisely the message it shouldve sent.....You, Mr.Obama, are not respected or welcome here. Kudos to all of our military for working hard for this country, something Obama would do well to emulate..."


I set about trying to research did in fact, President Obama receive the cold shoulder from US Military Troops at Ft. Bliss? 

I did a google search on Obama and Ft. Bliss speech and started reviewing the returns.

1st up was a CBS report on it that commented Obama "came on stage to applause..."

Next up was a HuffPo story, which I skipped due to its liberal bias...

Next was a NBC report...which didn't comment on the reception, but rather focused on the content of the speech...

Next was a link from Sodahead ..which basically reprinted much of the Daily Beast's story on the speech, but with no credit given to TDB...(Bad form.)

I kept looking for a mainstream source that mentioned the dud speech...

Next up was a blog, Nice Deb that featured Munro's story as the basis for her blog piece. (I did think the picture of Andrew Breitbart in her pitch for donations was pretty cool looking..) I moved on...

Next up was the Hill.com, which is a favorite website of mine for good quality reporting. I felt like I was getting closer to some real journalism. Oddly, the Hill didn't mention anything about a chilly reception either.

I skipped the "Clash Daily" and the "Tammy Bruce" links, as they are both clearly conservative in perspective and worked off the Munro piece.

I was hopeful when I found an article on it from a local television station, but they didn't comment on it either...

I then looked at a Fox News piece-which like the other major news organisations, said nothing about it.

I gave up...certain that the mainstream/lamestream media had let us down again...

Given the negative reporting of his appearance and the soldiers reaction to him, I looked for a link to the actual video of the speech in the article, but didn't find any. The White House posted the speech on their own website, and the author Neil Munro, even referred to the video saying that, "The White House’s video-feed cut off 10 seconds after the president finished his speech, before the audience’s reaction overall could be gauged by viewers."

Really?

Let's see for ourselves, shall we? (The video is about 26 minutes long...)



Wow...where to start?

First off, while there where campaign themes clearly evident in the speech, it was not an official campaign appearance. This visit was to thank the servicemen for a job well done and to announce some new programs aimed at improving mental health services for military personnel. I saw no campaign posters. The speech touches on some hard issues about military service and while there were moments of the troops acknowledging various units, and other reactions of approval towards the increased help for the vets, America's virtues, the military in general, it is true, no question about it-no shouts of four more years where heard at all. Nor should there have been.

Its important to not judge a speech like this by a standard belonging to campaign events. Its unfair and a bit shitty to the troops to try and use them as a political tool against the President. As it would be towards any President.

In terms of reception, Mr. Obama was greeted warmly with applause and hollers by the troops. Repeatedly throughout the speech, the audience responded positively and appropriately. During those times where the dark side of military service was being discussed, there weren't-for obviously good reasons-any cheering or whooping.

I give my friend a bit of a pass on this as they are not a college educated journalist. They saw something, it resonated well with their world-view of hating all things Obama and they tossed it up on facebook. Its not the first time they've done this and it probably won't be the last. Regardless, its pathetic and offensive that a person would willfully accept slanted words such as Munro's without even a cursory check to peruse the facts. This friend often claims to be absolutely pro-military and chides the President for being actively against our servicemen. If the author's intent by posting such a story to the Daily Beast website was that it would not only be picked up by like-minded websites, but also spread around social media by like-minded readers, with little regard for the facts or the details of the event, well, Mr. Munro-well done.

I feel bad for my friend because I think they are sincere about their admiration and support of our military. Its shameful that writers and editors knowingly post material such as this patently unfair piece knowing that many readers don't fact-check, don't dig any deeper, etc. (Have no illusions, both sides of the political world engage in this behavior.) Readers are treated as whores by the media. They are used to spread a theme or a falsehood, with absolutely no regard for them by the authors.

Does the name Neil Munro ring a bell? It did for me, so I did some quick digging. Remember this little gem from a few months ago?


Mr. Munro breached a long standing point of etiquette by interrupting the POTUS in the Rose Garden during remarks on the immigration issue. Reporters from Fox News' Chris Wallace to Shepard Smith criticized Mr. Munro's actions. "I think it's outrageous," Wallace said. "...The idea that you would interrupt the president in the middle of prepared remarks and shout a question — I don’t think the guy should be allowed back in the White House on a press pass and my guess is he won't be."

One of the goals of the Reasonable Conversation Blog is to provide a fair handling of political issues. I acknowledge I lean left but often have written critically of this President and his Administration. I have criticized unfair liberal treatment of the Chik Fil-A matter, defending gun rights, etc. There is no defending Munro's willful manipulation of a military event. None. 

Mr. Munro's seems to be a "journalist" whose bias has gotten the best of him. I suppose there's room in our media for self-serving types who seem more intent on shining the light on themselves than on any serious journalism. To pervert the audience reaction to advance an agenda is one thing. When that audience is United States servicemen and women, I would think Mr. Munro would know where to draw the line that he ought not step over. He apparently does not. 

While his peers understand the game he's playing, too many readers don't. Munro victimizes his readers in the same way a drug dealer does by giving crack to an addict. Too many of us are high/drunk on the euphoria of unearthing negative content about whoever we don't like in the political realm. 

To pervert the words of a politician is, it seems standard operating procedure in many newsrooms. The Left does it as does the Right. We as an audience of all too often ignorant, thrill seeking recipients, often get what we ask for. If we so despise Mitt Romney that anything...anything at all that shines a negative light upon him is acceptable no matter how offensive the perversion involved, we fail. Or, if we so despise Barack Obama that anything...anything at all that shines a negative light upon him is acceptable no matter the perversion involved, we're complicit. We're guilty of not using our brains, our intellect and our intelligence to evaluate the facts of a thing. When we abandon reason, we revert back to being animals. Crude and beastly and unrefined.

This is more than a friend letting their hatred be manipulated by a professional writer to advance an agenda at the cost of perverting the response of the members of an institution that this friend holds dear. Multiply the offensive nature of this by a factor of a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, whatever and you can begin to understand the massive journalistic wildfire that we must fight. It is a scorched earth approach that destroys everything in its path that doesn't agree with the originator's premise.

This is not a game.

We are doing great damage to ourselves, our institutions and our Country by playing along just because it feels so damn good. 




Sources: