Environmental Blog: Palin Makes News Yet Again

Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin is building up her flip-flop reputation yet again, this time to environmentalists. A recent blog from Tree Hugger states that Palin accepted the stimulus funds, yet said no to $29 million appropriated to the Alaskan State Energy Office. Environmentalists argue that she refuses this funding because she does not want to make Alaskan buildings more energy efficient.

Silly Palin. This makes environmentalists very unhappy. By turning down the greenest portion of the stimulus funds offered to the state of Alaska, she pretty much just put "going green" as last on her to do list. By putting this on the back burner, she ultimately stops the rippling effect of a more sustainable Alaska before is has even begun. Are we sure Palin wants to get re-elected? Her good looks and charming personality can only take her so far.

What's worse, this blogger states that Palin is the only governor to refuse the funding to the state energy office. I can only say one thing about her decision to opt out of going green. If she wants anything to do with remaining a huge player in the game of politics, then she is currently committing political suicide by refusing this money. This will be held against her in all her future endeavors, so she better put a bandage on this issue real quick. Regardless of her personal ideology, she must cater to this growing concern of her constituencies.

A Fellow Classmate's Blog: Judicial System Facing Problems with Technolgical Advances

A fellow classmate in my Politics & Media class recently wrote a blog regarding a story that appeared on the front page of the New York Times a few days ago. The article she discussed utterly blew me away. Twitter and Facebook, internet social tools, were actually considered legitimate grounds for a mistrial for a Pennsylvania state senator!

Not only is this outrageous, but I completely agree with my classmate when she states that the legal system must comply with new technology, because technology is only going to improve and become more accesible. She does an excellent job conveying both sides of this controversial issue. She then articulates logical arguments for both sides of this issue and asks questions that can only be answered through policy.

With internet and technology becoming more advanced and accessible each day, new laws have to be created that cater to this changing society. The laws that exist today do not safeguard the judicial system as we know it. It starts off with one case of a Pennsylvania state senator. Soon if not already, every case will have this potential downfall. Another caveat is, some jurors may not even be caught, and the rule that any information from outside the trial will be broken without any notice.

In a nutshell, if justice shall prevail as it has in the past, the laws of the judicial system must comply with the current trends of today's advanced technological society. Until that happens, as my classmate would concur, the legitimacy of our judicial system is skating on thin ice.

Femenist Blog: Spitzer Wants Back In

In the feminist section of The Pandagon, a post was written regarding Eliot Spitzer's attempted comeback in the political realm. The author of this blog wants to make certain that he is not let off the hook based on his supposed ignorance. She insists he has proven himself an intelligent man who understands the game of politics perfectly, as well as the rules and regulations that come with it. Let's face it, he wouldn't have been elected governor of New York if he didn't know how to play the game. She strongly argues that in our cultural society, sex is already degrading when concerning women. She claims this is evident through the automatic punishment of unintended pregnancy. What's worse, Spitzer attempted to throw these prostitutes into jail, just like the prostitute he screwed that eventually screwed over his career. The author eventually drifts off to movies, then sex in general. She makes legitimate points about the role of women in society. However, it's not necessarily relevant when talking about Spitzer getting back in the game.


Personally, I agree with this author. I don't believe Spitzer should have any leeway, simply because he violated a law he so vehemently attempted to enforce. However, a politician is a politician, and that means he will take every initiative possible to stay in the game, no matter how much dirty laundry has been aired. She has a right to be angry, we all do. But that's not going to stop Spitzer from doing everything he can to gain his power back. He may not be returning as governor of New York, yet I wouldn't be surprised if he attempted to get back in the swing of things, at least in some capacity. Of course he will say that he laments his mistakes and hindsight is 20/20. That's the role of every politician who's put in a tight spot.

NPR: Get Out Your Paper Masks

In a recent "All Things Considered" program on NPR, the topic of discussion was none other than Swine Flu. More specifically, the plans, or lack thereof, to deal with such a situation. President Obama has just asked for 1.5 billion dollars to combat it, the CDC. WHO and HHS are all scrambling to figure out where it is headed next. Citizens across the country, and the world are in a state of panic.

Richard Besser of the CDC was interviewed, and he explained the new emergency kits that are being send across the country. One component of these kits are paper masks, which have been said to be useless in Mexico. So is this "forward leaning step" (according to the CDC) just a placebo to prevent mass panic?

The top minds in America's health organizations are also trying to decipher the what ifs...what if the swine flue disappears only to return in the winter months? What if it reaches other poor countries? What if it never goes away? As these experts scramble to find the answers to these questions, the spread of the flu continues worldwide.

Even worse, none of these questions have been or will be answered for some time. We'll just have to strap on our paper masks and wait.

Pandagon on Specter

Pandagon recently wrote a hilarious post on Jim DeMint attempting to twist Senator Specter's flip to Democrat as a victory for the GOP. The hysterical entry describes how DeMint, a South Carolina senator, attempts to see the glass half full, stating "Republicans are seeing across the country that the biggest tent of all is the Tent of Freedom”.

All the while, a senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe, is left hanging with a bunch of extreme right wingers, according to Pandagon. She is not as positive as DeMint, insisting that this switch over is devastating for the Republican party. Snowe, a moderate Republican, lamented the extremist views of the Republican party and their exlusionary policies towards moderates. For now, Snowe is sticking with the party. Although it is a hostile place for moderates, she still believes in sticking with the essence of the party, and thinks that those currently representing the party have abandoned those principles.

Reading the Pandagon opened my eyes to information that objective news wouldn't provide for me, not to mention the post was hysterical. Posts like these open up channels for information on ridiculous senators and the truth behind major political news, that wasn't available for the average person not linked with anything but an internet source in the past.

FOX vs. CNN

Today I watched FOX news and compared it to CNN. Oh, the differences of obviously right wing and left wing media. They cover major events in very separate ways.

The three big news stories discussed on both networks were: The swine flu, the Specter switch and the end of Obama's first 100 days.

FOX news scorned Obama on his spending spree in his first 100 days, insisting he spend so much money and that it will continue to rise. They stated he racked up a massive spending tab, but never stated what that tab was used for or why it was so horrible. They moved on to the swine flu, even making that a bipartisan debate. They alleged that Democrats are accusing Republicans of blocking the flu in the stimulus package, as the number of confirmed cases in the U.S. continues to rise. Then they switched on the Senator Specter's switch from the GOP. They scorned Specter harshly, with reactions from Reagan and Guilliani. Reagan stated, "Good riddance". He was one of three Republicans to vote in favor of the stimulus package, the "monstrosity". Overall, the FOX news station just sounded like a few angry Republicans got together and reported the news with animosity.

CNN reported on a greater range of news stories, but covered those major ones in depth, as well. Other news stories highlighted the stimulus positively, insisting Chrysler reached a debt deal, and that the American citizens have the highest level of confidences regarding the Economy since November, which is how they opened the discussion for Obama's first one hundred days coming to an end tomorrow. In regards to the swan flu, they reported the news without much partisan view. When discussing Specter, they reported on Nancy Pelosi's reaction to the switch, as she stated that she was excited. What was interesting about CNN, even their commercials support Obama's stance on stimulating the economy via green jobs.

What was so interesting about watching both networks, was that although I gained the same information listening to either station, FOX just sounds like a bunch of bitter politicians who wanted to complain, while CNN just put an angle on their news stories to favor Obama. In a nutshell, if I ever had to choose only one as my news source, CNN would win with no competition.

End of the Widow Penalty, Op-Ed from the NY Times

In today's Op-ed Section of the New York Times, an article entitled "End of the 'Widow Penalty' " was an eye-opening editorial. According to this article, when an immigrant's citizen spouse dies, the 'widow penalty' gives that unlucky immigrant an order to leave the country before their paperwork can be processed.

This unjust law was unknown to me before reading this editorial. The author states that no exceptions have been made thus far. This means that after suffering the loss of a loved one, this person must get deported, severed from new family members as their entire life is uprooted.

Up until recently, there has been little progress with correcting this injustice. Finally, in a court case last week, the ball started to roll on fixing this awful penalty legislatively. The author notes that we should not punish immigrants who follow the rules, especially if it is a punishment caused by the death of a spouse.

This is one of my first times reading the op-ed section of a newspaper. I tend to skip right through it, thinking this section is not as important as the more objective news stories. Yet after reading this op-ed, I began to read a few more. Not only did I really enjoy them, but I actually learned a thing or two. This author makes a lot of sense and really gets to the heart of the matter. There still remains injustice in our legal system as the tyranny of the bureaucracy can dictate the lives of good people.