Here is one of Rush Limbaugh's critiques of Barack Obama:
We have 9.8% unemployment...I thought Obama had saved 23 million jobs! I thought he and Biden had saved all these jobs...Obama demeaned the office of the presidency going on this sales pitch for Chicago's corrupt profiteering...That was the opportunity Mayor Daley and everybody saw and they sent Obama off to secure it. And I'll tell you another reason he decided to go, not just because Daley sent him but Obama needed to distract everybody's attention from his massive failures at home and abroad.
Ignore for a moment the argument Rush Limbaugh presents. Instead, look at his use of "Obama" and "Biden." Limbaugh does not say "President Obama" or "Mr. Obama" - he just uses plain-old "Obama."
It's a lot easier to criticize Obama rather than Mr. Obama. The addition of "Mr." or "President" elevates the man, implies that he is deserving of respect. Taking away the title relegates him to the rest of us mere mortals.
The United States media often - and for good reason - portrays China and Russia as reluctant to implement sanctions on Iran. Rarely (too rarely), however, does it attempt to view the issue through a Chinese or Russian lens. Americans nearly never try to understand the complex motivations behind Chinese and Russian lukewarmness.
I will attempt to do that now. How do China and Russia think of Iran?
Probably in the same way we thought of Honduras. The lukewarm American opposition to the coup strikingly paralleled China and Russia's stances on Iran.
A few months ago the House of Representatives passed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, a meaningful reform of the way student loans are dealt with.
In my mind, this bill constitutes one of the Obama administration's most important accomplishments.
To understand why, provided hereafter is an explanation of what the bill does. In recent years, the cost for college has increased tremendously, to the point where total expenses exceed per capita American income. Therefore the federal government encourages banks to loan money to students. These loans are guaranteed and subsidized by the government.
In the past few months and years, media coverage of Israel has had subtle but distinct change in tone. The mainstream media is taking a harder look at Israel's policies, and has found not everything is to its liking.
There are several reasons why coverage of Israel has previously been so positive, and why recently a slight change has occurred. In the first place, Israel is a country culturally very attuned to us. Israel is part of the West; it shares Western norms and values. Many Jews would be comfortable living in the West and do so to this very day. Some of them work in the media and are sympathetic to the struggles their peers face.
Moreover, many in the media (and the vast majority of our country) believed that Israel had been in the right before 2006. Israel had - has - a democracy and a free press and all the things we like a country to have; the Palestine cause and their Arab supporters by and large do not. Israelis such as Yitzhak Rabin were calling for peace; meanwhile, Palestinian terrorist organizations such as Hamas were sending suicide bombers to kill Israelis civilians day after day.
Then came the 9-11 attacks by Muslim terrorists. In its aftermath media coverage of Israel was probably the most positive it had ever been.
There were three events, however, which changed things. At the very least, they have damaged Israeli prestige.
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox