Trump Strongly Supports Romney

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/20/trump-takes-hatchet-to-santorum/

          Donald Trump recently spoke on a Michigan radio show about his support for Mitt Romney. Trump has put a lot of money behind Romney, and is starting to harshly attack Rick Santorum. Trump is going to speak several times in Michigan to try and gain Michigan for Romney. He is showing strong support for Romney while bashing Santorum. Trump is a very well repeated business man so he's opinion might matter to the public and to the people of Michigan. Trump stated that the demarcates are waiting for Santorum to win because he believes the democrats think that if Santorum is elected, it will be an easy election. Trump's strong backing of Romney shows how the elites of our society can have a possible drastic impact on the political elections. With the upcoming elections in Michigan, Trump may have an impact on voters decisions.
       Should Trump's opinion really impact the decisions of voters? In my opinion his opinion should have no effect what-so-ever on the publics choice. Yes he is a very wealthy and successful business man, but there are several possible reasons as to why Trump is backing Romney so strongly. Trump may have other interests or motives behind his behavior that we don't know. So Trump's decision could be clouded by some things we don't see or know about; for all we know Trump might not even think Romney is the best candidate, he could be protecting his own interests. The public should do there own digging and search more into the candidates instead of simply letting the opinion of a powerful business man persuade them into making a decision.

We Who Are About to Write, Salute You

     While students all over Florida were encouraged to live blog about the Florida primary, the media had different pursuits.

     Sure, there were gallant efforts by the politically-focused press, but the king of this week’s news is not crowned among the realms of democracy. No, almost a week before the actual event, the media is live blogging about the Super Bowl. On a site that boasts, "Where your daily sports conversation begins... and never ends." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/super-bowl-2012-media-day-live-blog-eli-manning-and-the-new-york-giants/2012/01/31/gIQASam7eQ_blog.html)  

     Now, there is no political consequence to this— so much is true. In fact, it is clear that the American publics are more interested in gladiatorial combat than Greek theater. As I have drawn parallelisms between Rome and America before and now, I probably will again. We are plagued by many of the same problems. Human nature has barely changed over thousands of years, and we still prefer sex and violence over more cultured or intellectual pursuits.

Pollice Vero, Jean-Léon Gérôme, 1872

     But that is just it.

     The commercial media and events-based journalism are built not upon the adage, “If you build it, they will come,” as the comment-based presses of many other countries are. No, it is built on supply and demand. The news is a product to be sold—not a scrutiny to evoke thought. As long as our Cerberus is appeased with bread (see: the story of Psyche in Greek mythology), he will silently allow issues to pass under his watchful eye, silenced.

     So too is our press. So long as the watchdog is given ratings and advertising income, he is placated. But while that is a problem rooted in the nature and history of our press, the solution lies in us.

     We define the demand. We can break the cycle. 

Facebook, the Political Media and Networking Site

We are all well aware of Facebook’s absurd popularity, success, and wealth through its ability to allow devotees to post their every thought, expression, and movement on the public internet for anyone and all to view. Facebook shockingly became the world’s premier social media site, with your basic every day users acting as the company’s unpaid “reporters.” Recently, the company that encourages its popular cult to publicize their every move announced its upcoming application called “2012 Matters: What Matters Most.”

This application will allow Facebook members to interact in political affairs by answering poll questions and statuses on the issues that matter most this election. Most interesting, is Facebook’s new method of posting user data and thoughts- the very public and very large Nasdaq digital billboard in Times Square, New York.

Facebook’s direct newfound interest in politics is quite peculiar. With this new application, it will be the only major social media and networking site to inspire its users to become political activist. So why would a social media site be so concerned with giving its dedicated users this opportunity of public political activism?

Tanzina Vega, writer for the “Media Decoder” of the New York Times, cites in her discovery and coverage of Facebook’s new application that “Facts don’t spread. Emotions do spread.” This statement by Adams, a brand experience manager for Facebook, indicates the newest general trends of the media- rallying the audience towards one pole or the other by appealing to personal emotions in hopes of providing enough media coverage to influence voters towards a particular candidate. Ultimately, if that media outlet has the most influence on voter opinion, then their desired candidate will win and major profits will be had- a major win for the “winning” company’s finances and policies.

Is political activism for profit Facebook’s goal for this new application? Will this application perhaps uncover a bias in Facebook’s corporate structure? Only time will tell what the impact of the political polling application will be. One thing is certain however…users will jump at the chance to publicize their mediocre political opinions on a massive Times Square billboard.

Original Blog: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/facebook-users-to-put-political-views-up-in-lights-on-times-square/?ref=politics

TL;DR

     There’s quite a menagerie to American politics. At one end of our zoo, there are the donkeys and at the far right, the elephants. Neither are very cleanly creatures, and both of them—like monkeys—have a tendency to fling feces. Candidacy itself is described as a horse race, and candidate debates have turned into a dog and pony show. For their part, the media are parrots, repeating what is told to them and squawking every time they want ratings. (If you care for a reference, see Nancy Grace to the left and Bill O’Reilly to the right.) The publics are like sheep and everyone involved has a tendency, like ostriches were once said to do, to bury their heads in the sand when real issues are raised.

No, Noah. They're not worthy.

     But, please, don’t take my word for it. The January 26 CNN debate will speak for itself. Or not—sure, there was a lot of talking, but even the media do not seem to be quite sure of how much was actually said (viz Proverbs 29:20*).

     I’ll be the first to admit that I didn’t watch it. The pomp was just too much, and we’re in an age of technology, after all. It was just too easy to close the youtube window. It was then I was forced to wonder if this represented a problem with the American publics’ attention span or the usefulness of political reporting. Maybe we should check the polls.

     I’d have watched it in real time, but—like many young Americans—I have a real job. Instead, I went to the transcripts, where the audience isn’t subjected to the fake smiles and peacock feather fluffing.

     There were plenty of cockfights that the media gobbled up like hungry swine, but the overall quality was sloppy. With pretty, overarching phrases like, “secure the border,” “free trade,” and “immigrant grandmother,” we didn’t get much more than those 8-second sound bites for the media to play until we’re sick of hearing them.

     In the first question (“Can you tell me what specific actions you'll take to address the costly consequences of illegal immigration while preserving the rights of those who seek to immigrate legally?”), only Ron Paul gave a real response. Santorum spouted a lot of crap about securing the border, following laws, and sanctions against employers. Gingrich basically agreed, adding that legal immigration should be easier to acquire and gave an endorsement to his consorts in big business—American Express, Visa and Master Card. (Someone got laid for that… proverbially, of course.) Romney stood by self-deportation. None of them gave details or answered how they would accomplish these goals or with what resources. Save for Paul, who clearly and succinctly said that we should stop focusing on other countries, and place the resources there back home. (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/push-it-somewhere-else-patrick)

     If you know anything about history, you’d remember that that was Rome’s version of self-preservation. Something about not overextending oneself with conquest and performing baseline defense. Good strategy. A classic.

     Shortly thereafter, we get to the prettiest cockfight of the debate, one that no one watching or reading the news can seem to escape. Like a freshman repeating the first incident wherein a professor cursed in class, the media can’t seem to get enough of Romney’s overuse of the phrase “inexcusable.” It wasn’t even as good as the Sicilian’s equally abused, “inconceivable” of the Princess Bride. Nevertheless, Gingrich and Romney fought bitterly over the former’s use of the superlative (“most anti-immigrant candidate”) in describing the latter.

     Not to say there was any real political consequence to this clash. In the end, people won’t—read: shouldn’t—be swayed to vote in their primaries either way based on the few-minutes clip of their posturing.

     And the real problem with the American media is that they focus on events outside of real consequence. Not just events.

     At this point a question is asked concerning relations with Latin American countries. There is some tension here between Paul and Santorum, wherein Paul suggests free trade as an answer and Santorum suggests “closer ties.” Paul responds cattily (the animal puns keep coming!) that Santorum doesn’t define his idea of closer ties and accuses that closer ties involve “that we impose ourselves, go and pick the dictators, undermine certain governments, also sending them a lot of money.”

     Santorum responds that Paul “obviously wasn’t listening to” his closer ties argument.

     Let’s pause for a moment and go back to history. Iraq is close enough that you don’t have to do any real research. We took out a dictator that was, by Santorum’s terms, “a threat” to democracy. We have tried to mold them into “friends who want to engage and support America, who want to be great trading partners and great allies for our country.” And to do so, we imposed ourselves, picked the dictators, forced democracy (read: undermined certain governments), and threw a lot of money at it to “accomplish” these noble goals.

     Who, Mr. Santorum, was listening?

     Now, we get to another catfight. Romney accuses Gingrich of having another consort (he does get around, doesn’t he?) in American big business—Freddie Mac, who reportedly hired him to maintain the marriage and strength of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (the only marriage he’s been able to save). Gingrich responds like any upset 2^nd grader—with an ad hominem attack.

      “Well you have stock in these companies. Who you calling cootie queen, you lint licker?” Okay, I might have paraphrased.

     In the end, Romney plays dumb. He did this just before the Fannie and Freddie fight, concerning an ad about Gingrich, wherein he accuses Gingrich of calling Spanish, “the language of the ghetto.” He claimed he didn’t recall the ad, and CNN researchers quickly hunted it down, proudly endorsed by Romney at the end. In this case, he claimed that his finances were “managed by a trustee”—must be nice, huh? So, it didn’t matter that he made millions of dollars in the housing bubble. It wasn’t his fault, right?

     In the end, they both looked like asses—with or without the animal puns.

     Now, in the animal world, we get to see a prime example of the fight or flight response. Observe:

     Returning from commercial break, Blitzer confronts Gingrich about his response to Romney’s finances. Here, we see flight. Gingrich calls it a nonsense question, and with sweet-talk unrivaled by lyrebirds in courtship, implores the moderator to skip the question.

     Now, we see fight! Like a proper predator, Mr. Wolf sticks to his guns and quotes Gingrich in saying Romney, “lives in a world of Swiss bank and Cayman Island bank accounts.” Shrewdly as a snake and with the innocence of a dove, the moderator pointedly adds, “I didn’t say that. You did.”

     I’d paraphrase here, but I can display Gingrich’s horror no better than he, himself. “I did,” he admits. “And I'm perfectly happy to say that on an interview on some TV show. But this is a national debate, where you have a chance to get the four of us to talk about a whole range of issues.”

     Romney skips the dove part and strikes like a cobra. “Wouldn't it be nice if people didn't make accusations somewhere else that they weren't willing to defend here?”

    Well, sir, wouldn’t it be nice if you didn’t say that to exploit over quoting in the media for face time?

_________________________________________________________

*(NIV) "There is more hope for a fool than someone who speaks without thinking.