Timetables and Benchmarks are becoming overused Washington!

It just seems to be moving at a snail’s pace constantly in that White House. Due to our direct concern to funding our military, our Democratic and Republican leaders are both stubborn and unaware of how to agree on making “timetables” and “benchmarks” for this Iraq (and Afghanistan) War.
In this morning’s New York Times, an article was printed about the moderate Republicans warning at a meeting on Tuesday to Bush on his Iraq policy, following his rejection of last week’s House bill proposed by the Democrats.
The House bill would essentially provide financing for combat operations through midsummer, but require the president to provide a series of reports on the state of the Iraqi military and the progress of the government in achieving political unity. Congress would then vote in late July on releasing the rest of the money sought by the administration, about $53 billion, or restricting its use to redeployment and more limited operations in Iraq.
Bush and his officials feel that two-month payment stages are inadequate.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty in funding when it comes to two-month cycles, so we reject that idea,” Mr. Bush told reporters during a Pentagon visit. “I’ll veto the bill if it’s this haphazard, piecemeal funding — and I’ve made that clear.”
Participants in the Tuesday meeting between Bush, senior administration officials and 11 members of a moderate bloc of House Republicans said the lawmakers were unusually candid with the president, telling him that public support for the war was crumbling in their swing districts.
“There’s a sense here certainly by the Democrats and growing among Republicans that there has to be some progress, significant progress to sustain it beyond September,” said Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican. Lawmakers said there was strong emphasis that they would be formulating their future position on the war on the basis of what Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, says in a report this summer.
Later on Today, another New York Times story came out that Bush insisted at meeting today that he was willing to work with lawmakers to include benchmarks for the performance of the Iraqi government in a war spending bill, which is something members of both parties have been vigorously seeking.
To me it just seems like there are too many scenarios being suggested to the president and his administration, ever since the Iraq Study Group came out with that book.
At least the Associated Press had this to say about the President’s idea of agreeing on benchmarks:
A dozen or so members in Congress are attempting to strike a bipartisan compromise. Few have come forward with concrete plans - perhaps out of reluctance to champion a proposal until they know it can succeed. None of the proposals put in plain view have picked up steam.
That really made things clear to me, unlike the New York Time’s or the Washington Post’s handling of this story. All they basically said was reverberated what they heard at the press conference without any journalistic, or deeper insight to this ongoing story.
If you read the New York Times or the Post’s stories, they are almost the exact same thing, overplaying quotes by Bush, which clutter up the story.
The AP story I could understand so much more than the other ones, maybe because they are making less money due to the fact they are reporting more individualistically than following their company’s “policies”.
From the AP: Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia was one of 11 GOP lawmakers who met with Bush and his top aides Tuesday afternoon.
"We asked them what's Plan B," Davis said. "We let them know that the status quo is not acceptable." Davis said the president responded that if he began discussing a new strategy, his current one never would have a chance to succeed.
Even the article from Reuters I can follow more easily. They have THE best lead out of the other three I mentioned :
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush, already under fire from Democrats over Iraq, is facing mounting pressure from fellow Republicans to show substantial progress in the war by September or risk their desertion.
It’s newer-sounding. It’s fresher, I feel.
But September is looming as a critical time because members of Congress will have returned from August recess at home and will have heard from voters in their home areas about Iraq. (Reuters)
It also marks a period in which Americans will begin to take greater interest in candidates running to succeed Bush in the November 2008 election. (Reuters)
Thank you Reuters staff writers Peter Szekely, Steve Holland and Tabassum Zakaria, as well as AP writer Anne Flaherty. You helped me renew and continue my interest on this dry subject matter. New York Times and Washington Post, take a more individualistic approach!

Censorship, what goes to far?

After class on Friday I came across a particularly relevant article dealing with a push within the government to censor military blogs. In other words, active soldiers would need to run every blog entry by their commanding officer for approval. In fact it would allow commanders to restrict their units access to facebook, myspace, eBay, or even a simple email client. One blogger himself finds it ironic that in a restriction on Military blogs, the only leeway given by the Army is that articles can be posted as long as they aren't "military related." This was just one new change made to Operations Security (Op sec), an army protocol that defines procedure for controlling the flow of information and resources and how to maintain the security of said traffic.

Does this go to far? I thought at first that the easy answer would be yes, this is ridiculous. But now I'm not so sure. Obviously the soldiers who are part of the blogger community provided a valuable resource to the public at large for giving us firsthand accounts of what is going on. I mean, what better way to get a perspective on the war than by having it narrated by the participants. However, there is always a danger of leaking potentially dangerous information and jeopardizing the mission at hand and more importantly, the lives of the soldiers. It is also a question of logistics; should it really be the job of the commanding officer to read several blog posts per day and decide if they are a possible threat to safety? Won't that bog down his performance and distract him from more critical tasks and decisions? As I pondered this question I realized that the commanders themselves are probably thinking the same thing. So if these changes began to be enforced, we may eventually see the end of blogging within the active ranks, if not a severe curtail in proliferation of such documents. Surely any commanding officer with a good head on his shoulders would immediately spot the difficulties of policing his unit and bearing the responsibility for what comes out of it. It won't be long before bans on blogs of any kind period are enforced. We have glimpsed the light that is soldier-blogging, but savor it; we may soon be back in the dark.

Media Regulation and Censorship

In the "Mass media and American Politics"class today we viewed a video regarding the 2004"wardrobe malfunction of Janet Jackson. While this event is years old, there is an issue within the main one that is ongoing.

Media regulation and censorship are two issues that are on the forefront in media. Should the government be able to regulate and enforce what it thinks the American public should be allowed to see?In my opinion, this is a double edged sword. When Janet Jackson exposed herself on national television, the public was outraged, and couldn't believe how this was allowed to happen. On the other hand, if they were to crack down on the laws people would say that they were infringing on their civil liberties. The argument that the companies made was that they could regulate themselves, and not to get the government involved. But, if this were the case, this event most likely wouldn't have happened in the first place.

I think that censorship is both a good and a bad thing. What about the middle school students who come home to an empty house? Do we want indecent material available to them at all times? While censorship of media is a good thing, do we want it to continue? If the government is allowed to regulate the media, they may begin to think it is okay to regulate what books are printed, etc. The newly updated regulation laws by the FCC are an attempt to protect society from inappropriate content.

"No News" on the Front Page

A man had drunken sex with a goat. This was literally the front page article on Foxnews.com. Tombe, a good citizen of Sudan, had been having sexual relations with a goat in this home-town. News of these bizarre erotic bestiality adventures soon came to light to the proper authorities. Tombe was brought before a judge and was given a hilarious, yet extremely demeaning sentence. The judge viewed the sexual relations with the goat to be on the same level of a man having relations with an unmarried woman. The judge sentenced Tombe to marry the goat, to save her public humiliation, and pay the owner of the goat 15,000 Sudanese dinars, which is about $50. After the two lovebirds joined in marriage, the goat gave birth to a male kid. Tombe began to neglect the goat and she was forced to roam the streets alone, where she soon chocked on a plastic bag one lonely night. However, Tombe was granted custody of the kid, and will be forced to live with the guilt that forced his wife to choke on a piece of plastic.

First of all this was the funniest news article I have ever read. It was purely ridiculousness, but I loved every minute of it. I really cannot believe that Fox had the nerve to put this on the front page of their website. I mean there are a lot more news stories in the world that deserve much more recognition that man tangled love life with a goat. However, I did get caught up in the “No News” hype. As soon as I saw the article I read the entire thing. I guess this the kind of stuff that people want to come home and read after a day at work. However, I do not think that you will see this news story popping up on Fox’s television program anytime soon. The older generations watch the TV news, where as the “info-snackers”, or younger generations are looking at the internet. I think the internet can get away with reporting these types of news stories, when the TV news has to be more formal and report the headline news stories to keep the people who want the facts watching. I think it weird that fox would put a story like this on their homepage, but hey, I found it funny and kind of sickly interesting. In any event more and more of these types of articles will be displayed on the internet because it is what people want to see.

Murdoch bids for Dow Jones. Are we surprised?

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp $5 million takeover bid (about $60 a share) over the Wall Street Journal’s publisher Dow Jones has triggered a nearly 55 percent jump in its stock price on Tuesday, according to Reuters.

Many feel that if Murdoch wins this bid, which needs to be addressed by the Bancroft family who owns over 60 percent of the Dow Jones & Co. voting power, he will use his new power for his own personal and political reasons.

Dow Jones is one of several large U.S. newspaper companies that are controlled by families, an ownership structure criticized by some financial analysts and investors as ineffective.

The Reuters article also said that if the Bancroft’s do not accept Murdoch’s bid, than it will be likely that lawsuits will emerge from shareholders accusing the directors for failing to look after investors' interests.

According to the Boston Globe, Dow Jones said its board would factor the Bancrofts' initial opposition into its evaluation of Murdoch's bid, but the stock remained strong in after-hours trading and analysts said that the drama was far from over.

In reality, all Murdoch is trying to do here is dramatically enhance New Corps national penetration and power in business reporting.

"It fits in News Corp.'s plans to become a multimedia player in financial media," said Louis Capital Markets' head of global research, Robbert Van Batenburg.

News Corp. has said it plans to launch the channel in the fourth quarter. The channel already is guaranteed to reach more than 30 million cable homes, has signed up top cable companies Comcast and Time Warner to carry the channel, and is hiring reporters and news anchors, according to sources close to the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the process is ongoing. (Washington Post)

The Journal has "great journalists; it's got great management," Murdoch said. "But it's got rather a confined capital; it needs to be part of a bigger organization to be taken further."

I’d like to see the family owners of Dow Jones hold on as long as they can, but come on, who can stop the power of Rupert Murdoch. Hopefully this change will be for the better when it happens. Let the buyouts continue, and the quality of business reporting remain unabashed.

Women in Office

With the coming election, and a female presidential candidate, members of the media such as CNN and The Christian Science Monitor have been delving into what it may be like if our nation is to have its first female president.

CNN's article "Female voters set high standards for female candidates", states that "for the first time in history, a women has the visibility, the reputation and the cash to make a serious run at the presidency". The American public is used to an all male field, but the biggest problem a women candidate might face is the female voters themselves. Women tend to set very high standards for female candidates, in part because it is thought that most women expect the first women candidate to be a reflection of themselves, only better, states Marie Wilson, President of the White House Project. "There has never been a female president before, and we want them to be perfect. We want them to represent us." The article also goes on to state how women are up against a tougher set of standards then men are. There would be much more opposition against a women running at John McCain's age or with Barack Obama's experience. Even though women have made great advances in the last few decades, they still only make up about sixteen percent of Congress and at the state legislature level. Along with Condoleeza Rice and Nancy Pelosi, Geraldine Ferrero was one of the first major trailblazers for women in politics with her run for Vice President in 1984, sparking many women to think "if she can do it, so can I".

The Christian Science Monitor builds on this with "Imagining the world with more female heads of state". So many countries around the world have already had a female as their president. Why is it then that the United States, one of the most powerful, advanced and supposedly free thinking nations has not? Germany presently has a female head of state and this Sunday France will decide if they will have one as well. "In the United States, women can become astronauts and Supreme Court judges and cabinet ministers and governors and newspaper editors and publishers and secretaries of State, but the presidency has so far eluded them" states Hughes. He thinks that many in the United State's feel that women are not tough or forceful enough to rule, or rally troops in a time of war. If we look at history though, Ms Thatcher did very well rallying Britain's troops in war against Argentina, and when Israel was in danger of falling apart, Ms Meir was able to hold it together quite well also.

Hillary Clinton is now running for office, and Condoleeza Rice is an example of a female on the Republican side who might also be just as capable as any man running for president. At present, there are only eleven, maybe soon twelve nations throughout the world with a female head of state. Most of these are leading nations though. Maybe it is time for the United States to make a change. I am not personally, particularly in favor of Hillary Clinton but I do think that women are just as capable as men are to do the job. There have been many powerful and successful female rulers in the past and around the world today, and maybe it would bring a good change, and help to promote a better image for our nation in the future if more females came to power.

Flip Flopping and Media Watching:

As the semester for UNH draws to a close while picking a topic for my final blog, I stopped at an interesting story former CIA director George Tenet. He while promoting his new book (hint hint) he decides this would be the perfect time to unleash his feelings on the Bush Administration and the case for going to war with Iraq. Vice president Cheney gave a speech on August 2002 where he spoke about how Saddam had restarted his nuclear program, Tenet quickly realized that the assertion went way beyond “what our analysis could support”, but , “Yet, instead of confronting the vice president, he let it slide.” Tenet finally tells bosses what they didn't want to hear, well this is surprising, how many years after we started this war and after he had sat down behind Colin Powell and corroborated the credibility of there being WMD’s in Iraq as of 2001.This is down right unbelievable that a person of his stature after years of great service to the CIA, could allow a ‘slam dunk’ case like he said to George Bush in 2002 to get to the point where he is calling it a simple case of group-think syndrome. Reminder that Tenet worked for the United States of America’s intelligence agency, in case you didn’t hear once again, the CIA of the United States of America; I don’t know about you but I accept only the best from such an organization, Tenet as a civil servant had a job to do and he failed making himself and in this case some left thinking that that America is foolish.

This is undoubtedly plays to the case against the Iraq war, George seems to be playing things to his advantage, when the war was cool he was in, now it is not, so he is speaking up as the reputable guy taking the hit. Nobody outside of Washington can really think that this is face saving; if nothing else it shows his leadership skills are nothing less than horrible. As far as I am concerned this is a media stunt that has obviously done just as other stories that I have covered this semester seem to all have in common, which is using things to your advantage, if it is not George playing the game of politics for the sake of his book, it is the media giving time to people like Anna Nicole Smith or Rosie O’Donnell. The moral of this blog is not a case of for or against Iraq or even the humiliation at the expense of George Tenet, but rather a simple point- the media and its attempts to follow and produce stories that credit the unworthy, as well as the telling and retelling of stories till not them (the media) but we the viewers are blue in the face. George Tenet does not deserve any of America’s sympathy, and the media does not need to sit him down interview after interview and tell us about it. Give me some news, not a “scapegoat” looking for a few dollars after killing his career all by himself, by not speaking up when it still counted.

Intelligence “is the product that results from processing information.”(intelligence - Definitions)This means that all the information that is collected form various ways tv, reporters, spies, newspapers ect., is essentially not anything till it is made useful or deemed inadequate. Needless to say Tenet and TV reporters need to check there information and make sure they are getting it right the first time around and for the right reasons.

"Please don't deport Daddy"

Protesters began their march early Saturday morning in a hot Houston neighborhood mostly occupied by Mexican-Americans. 300-400 people of all ages beat drums and marched, calling for law makers to create a far-reaching immigration policy to allow undocumented workers to stay in the states and with their families. Grace Bandercan, a 5 year old supporter held a sign that read, "Please don't deport my Daddy." Grace and her mother are American citizens, and her father, an immigrant construction worker is trying desperately to obtain legal papers. Grace's mother told reporters that her husband pays his taxes and is a good citizen, if only the government would recognize him.
“They need to remember the human side of things,” said Elizabeth Bandercan, referring to immigration enforcement officials. “We just want to live as a family.”
MSNBCStory

Meanwhile, on his weekly radio broadcast President Bush urged lawmakers to come together on immigration policies. Bush called it, “a critical challenge” before the nation, which is presently home to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.“We need a system where our laws are respected. We need a system that meets the legitimate needs of our economy. And we need a system that treats people with dignity and helps newcomers assimilate into our society,” Bush said.
Bush also challenged Congress, who are currently at a stalemate to come to a decision on immigration, arguing that his proposal doesn't mean amnesty. A recent poll done by the Wall street Journal and NBC News shows that 51% of Americans oppose Bush's immigration proposal offering a path to legal status, while 44% are in favor. Bush's argument is that illegal immigrants are taking the jobs of American citizens. Republicans proposed the idea that illegal immigrants should have to pay a fine of $10,000 to become legal citizens, but this idea was shot down by Bush, saying that illegal immigrants shouldn't;t be pushed to the front of the line, making immigrants who haven't broken the laws wait even longer to obtain citizenship. VideoLink

Also on Saturday, President Bush spoke at Miami-Dade College in Miami about immigration, a move that took some say took a lot of nerve seeing as though more than half of the graduating students were from a background not American. His message to the new grads was to get their elected officials in Washington going and make a decision about the immigration laws.
“You see every day the values of hard work, and family, and faith that immigrants bring,”the president said. “This experience gives you a special responsibility to make your voices heard.”
Bush spoke of how our immigration system is badly broken by saying,“We must address all elements of this problem together — or none of them will be solved at all."MiamiDade

As the elections draw near and Presidential candidates make their campaigns it will be interesting to see which way the public leans; will we remember that we all started off as immigrants at one point, or will we seek to send newcomers home with the message from America being, you're not welcome?

Must have some down time...

In browsing through "On The Media" this week, I noticed something unusual. The first two stories listed (and thus the two stories most likely to be watched) were about people who were dead. The first story spoke about the obituaries for Boris Yeltsin, and the next story focussed on the war exploits of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman. While Jessica Lynch isn't dead, Pat Tillman and Boris Yeltsin certainly are. This leads to an interesting question: are dead people just more interesting than live people, or did they just have nothing to talk about this week?

I would submit that the first assumption is more correct. Dead people are almost always more interesting than people who are alive. When we turn on the news, we expect to see stories of people being shot, or the heroic death of a fireman, or the tragic death of an innocent in the wrong place at the wrong time. On the other hand, we rarely care about people who are living and succeeding. Because we spend all day trying to "succeed" at life and get more money or a better car, we don't want to come home and see people on TV doing better than we think we're doing. Instead, we need to feel like we accomplished something today. To hear that there are three more people in the world who won't be doing better than we are is a reassurance that the work we did on that day is actually worth something.