President Barack Obama achieved two of his greatest campaign promises in 2010, but he did not dwell on these Tuesday in his State of the Union speech.
Although health care reform and the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” were two important measures passed by Congress, Obama said it is now time to “move forward” and “win the future for America.”
Obama acknowledged the debate surrounding health care reform, which House republicans have voted to repeal. He said he is willing to work with them to improve the plan.
“If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I’m eager to work with you,” Obama said.
To sway republicans, Obama cited a few ways health care reform is helping struggling senior citizens and students.
“As we speak, this law is making prescription drugs cheaper for seniors and giving uninsured students a chance to stay on their parents’ coverage,” he said. “So instead of refighting the battles of the last two years, let’s fix what needs fixing and move forward.”
Obama’s way of moving forward includes funding innovation, reforming education and repairing America’s infrastructure. Although the economy is an important aspect of each of the areas Obama outlined, he did not give an in-depth plan of how to fix the economy.
He did, however, acknowledge the deficit, saying the government cannot afford to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.
“Before we take money away from our schools, or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break,” Obama said.
He pointed out that ending the tax break should not be seen as a punishment on those who earn more, but should be seen as ensuring everyone is on an even playing field.
The government should also help tackle the deficit, Obama said. He proposed freezing annual domestic spending, which would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade.
A big contributor to the deficit is the war in Afghanistan. Since the war began in 2003, the government has sunk billions of dollars into the region. In his 2010 State of the Union speech, Obama proposed withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan by August 2011. Obama has since changed that plan, saying Tuesday troops would begin to arrive home in July.
Obama pointed out that not everyone in the military comes from the same background. He said some are white, black, Latino, Asian, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and some are gay.
“Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love,” Obama said, referring to the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which prohibited homosexuals from serving.
Perhaps the biggest theme of the night, however, was bipartisanship. In support of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot Jan. 8 in Tuscon, some members of Congress elected to break tradition and sit together despite political party. However, Obama said this new seating arrangement doesn’t mean anything if they can’t work together.
“What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow,” the president said.
Throughout the speech, Obama encouraged democrats and republicans to work together and put party politics aside.
“We have our differences in policy, but we all believe in the rights enshrined in our constitution,” Obama said.
Bipartisanship is another of Obama’s big campaign promises. He has already delivered on two. Let’s see if he can make it three.
Jan 25, 2011
Revision: Barack Obama State of the Union
When President Barack Obama delivers his second State of the Union address Tuesday to a joint session of Congress , he may find members of Congress are not in their usual seats. That is, if Sens. Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, have their way.
Last week, the two senators began circulating a letter urging members of Congress to forego tradition and sit together, not on opposite sides of the aisle, in an effort at solidarity following the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., on Jan. 8. More than 40 members of Congress have signed on.
Obama ran on the promise of reaching across the aisle and ending partisanship in Washington. In his 2010 State of the Union speech, Obama said he wanted “all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to overcome our differences, to overcome the numbing weight of our politics." Obama now has a chance to make good on those campaign promises. But it will take a fight.
Republicans are upset with Obama, particularly on the subject of health care reform. Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Wednesday the House voted to repeal the act.
Health care reform legislation is the jewel in Obama’s crown thus far. He campaigned on getting the legislation passed so all Americans could have affordable health care. After a year, and some debate in Congress, the bill passed. Is it perfect? No, but it has the potential to help millions of Americans.
Health care reform is today’s version of former President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, which provided jobs and government benefits to millions of Americans during the Great Depression. FDR’s initiatives were not widely accepted at the time, like the health care act, but we have grown used to Social Security, Medicare and welfare. These programs have helped people for generations. Who is to say Obama’s health care plan won’t have the same effect on our children and grandchildren?
Health care reform also has the potential to help the struggling economy. This bill has the potential to decrease the budget deficit, which could mean economic improvement. Much like former President John F. Kennedy, Obama took office in the midst of a recession. Kennedy’s remarks in his 1961 State of the Union ring true today. “The present state of our economy is disturbing,” he said. Both Obama and Kennedy faced the daunting task of creating jobs and getting people back to work.
However, the economic circumstances are getting better. The stock market has rebounded and stimulus money has been distributed to fix roads, build schools and create jobs. Jobless claims continue to fall and people are beginning to spend more money on houses and cars. Although the U.S. debt is expected to reach $16 trillion by the end of the decade, the economic situation is improving, thanks to Obama’s fortitude to pass the stimulus act.
Although the issues at home are many, Obama must also address foreign policy, specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While most of the troops have withdrawn from Iraq, nearly 100,000 troops remain in Afghanistan. The U.S. continues to sink time and billions of dollars into the 8-year-old war, and the situation has only improved somewhat. In 2010, Obama promised to have troops out of Afghanistan by this July. But to get Congress, specifically Republicans, to back this idea, Obama must provide a straightforward, realistic plan of action.
Despite Republican opposition, Obama was able to achieve many things during his first year of presidency. Now, with a divided Congress, he must put his campaign rhetoric in action. If ever there was a time for bipartisanship, it is now.
Jan 20, 2011
Barack Obama: State of the Union Op-Ed
When President Barack Obama delivers his second State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, he will find representatives are not in their usual seats. That is, if Sens. Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, have their way.
Last week, the two senators began circulating a letter urging members of Congress to forego tradition and sit together, not on opposite sides of the aisle, in an effort at solidarity following the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., two weeks ago. More than 40 members of Congress have signed on.
Obama ran on the promise of reaching across the aisle and ending partisanship in Washington. In his 2010 State of the Union, Obama said he wanted “…all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to overcome our differences, to overcome the numbing weight of our politics.” Although it took a tragic shooting, Obama now has a chance to make good on those campaign promises. But it will take a fight.
Republicans are very upset with Obama, particularly on the subject of health care reform. Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced Wednesday the House’s intention to repeal the act.
Health care reform legislation is the jewel in Obama’s crown thus far. He campaigned on getting the legislation passed so all Americans could have affordable health care. After a year, and some debate in Congress, the bill passed. Is it perfect? No, but it has the potential to help millions of Americans.
Health care reform is today’s version of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, which provided jobs and government benefits to millions of Americans during the Great Depression. FDR’s initiatives were not widely accepted at the time, like the health care act, but we have grown used to Social Security, Medicare and welfare. These programs have helped people for generations. Who is to say Obama’s health care plan won’t have the same effect on our children or grandchildren?
Health care reform also has the potential to help the struggling economy. This bill has the potential to decrease the budget deficit, which could mean economic improvement. Much like former President John F. Kennedy, Obama took office in the midst of a recession. Kennedy’s remarks in his 1961 State of the Union ring true today. “The present state of our economy is disturbing,” he said. Both Obama and Kennedy faced the daunting task of creating jobs and getting people back to work.
However, the economic circumstances are getting better. The market has rebounded and stimulus money has been distributed to fix roads, build schools and create jobs. Jobless claims continue to fall and people are beginning to spend more money on houses and cars. Although the U.S. debt is expected to reach $16 trillion by the end of the decade, the economic situation is improving, thanks to Obama’s fortitude and to pass the stimulus act.
Although the issues at home are many, Obama must also address foreign policy, specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While most of the troops have withdrawn from Iraq, nearly 100,000 troops remain in Afghanistan. The U.S. continues to sink time and billions of dollars into the 8-year-old war, and the situation has only improved somewhat. In 2010, Obama promised to have troops out of Afghanistan by this July. But to get Congress, specifically Republicans, to back this idea, Obama must provide a straightforward, realistic plan of action.
Despite Republican opposition, Obama was able to achieve many things during his first year of presidency. Now, with a divided Congress, he must put his campaign rhetoric in action. If ever there was a time for bipartisanship, it is now.
Errors galore!
Everyone makes mistakes. It's human nature. However, when you're goal is to inform people, mistakes can be costly. Errors in newspapers cannot be taken lightly. These can lead to a misinformed audience, a ruined reputation and sometimes even lawsuits.
Luckily, the errors in Wednesday's edition of The Parthenon were not bad enough to cause a lawsuit. However, an error is an error and such things need corrected.
Aside from basic copy editing mistakes, the writer of the the story made some factual errors. He reported that the WVU women's basketball team was coming into Wednesday's Capital Class with four losses. In truth, the team only had one loss. The author, or editors, also quoted a paraphrase, essentially manufacturing a direct quote from one of Marshall's women players. This is an egregious error that, if in different circumstances, could lead to a libel lawsuit.
Other mistakes in the stories included a bit of sexism. From looking at the two stories, it seems as though men's basketball is held to a higher standard. The men's team was referred to as "Marshall," while the women's team was simply called "women." From the headline, it seems as though the men's team is representing the entire school, while the women's team represents only females. Saying something like "Marshall men" and "Marshall women" would put the two teams on even playing fields.
As with most Parthenon stories, there were several AP style and mechanical mistakes such as capitalization and punctuation. The semester is new, and Parthenon reporters and editors are still getting their bearings. I'm sure as the semester progresses, readers will see less mistakes in the newspaper.
Luckily, the errors in Wednesday's edition of The Parthenon were not bad enough to cause a lawsuit. However, an error is an error and such things need corrected.
Aside from basic copy editing mistakes, the writer of the the story made some factual errors. He reported that the WVU women's basketball team was coming into Wednesday's Capital Class with four losses. In truth, the team only had one loss. The author, or editors, also quoted a paraphrase, essentially manufacturing a direct quote from one of Marshall's women players. This is an egregious error that, if in different circumstances, could lead to a libel lawsuit.
Other mistakes in the stories included a bit of sexism. From looking at the two stories, it seems as though men's basketball is held to a higher standard. The men's team was referred to as "Marshall," while the women's team was simply called "women." From the headline, it seems as though the men's team is representing the entire school, while the women's team represents only females. Saying something like "Marshall men" and "Marshall women" would put the two teams on even playing fields.
As with most Parthenon stories, there were several AP style and mechanical mistakes such as capitalization and punctuation. The semester is new, and Parthenon reporters and editors are still getting their bearings. I'm sure as the semester progresses, readers will see less mistakes in the newspaper.
Jan 11, 2011
NY Times Blogs
Although a lot of newspapers across the country publish blogs on their websites, many of them are not frequently updated and fall by the wayside. The New York Times bucks this trend. As the country's newspaper of record, NYT publishes several blogs of varying topics and interests. Out of the many blogs this newspaper publishes online, we were asked to review and comment on three.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com is a hodgepodge of blog posts that cover a little bit of everything. I liked this blog and thought the varying topics would appeal to a mass amount of readers. I especially liked the video of the snowfall. That was my favorite post.
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com is the sports blog. I'm not big into sports, but I did like how it highlighted the leading sports news stories, as well as giving coverage to lesser-known (to me, anyway) stories. I really liked the "About Our Bloggers" feature. I think it adds an element of credibility when a reader can see a mug of the writer and learn a little more about them.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com is world news, but it hasn't been updated in a few days. I understand that not everything that happens throughout the world is necessarily breaking news that really affects Americans, but a frequently updated blog would make it more credible. If I were a follower of that blog, I would appreciate more frequent updates, especially if I were an immigrant and wanted to know what was going on around the world.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com is a hodgepodge of blog posts that cover a little bit of everything. I liked this blog and thought the varying topics would appeal to a mass amount of readers. I especially liked the video of the snowfall. That was my favorite post.
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com is the sports blog. I'm not big into sports, but I did like how it highlighted the leading sports news stories, as well as giving coverage to lesser-known (to me, anyway) stories. I really liked the "About Our Bloggers" feature. I think it adds an element of credibility when a reader can see a mug of the writer and learn a little more about them.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com is world news, but it hasn't been updated in a few days. I understand that not everything that happens throughout the world is necessarily breaking news that really affects Americans, but a frequently updated blog would make it more credible. If I were a follower of that blog, I would appreciate more frequent updates, especially if I were an immigrant and wanted to know what was going on around the world.
Writing style
Eugene Robinson is a syndicated columnist based at the Washington Post Post. He is also a frequent guest on my favorite morning talk show, "Morning Joe" on MSNBC. I honestly haven't read a lot of Robinson's work. Some of his columns are picked up by the Charleston Gazette on the weekends, but I'm not an avid follower.
On the show, he seems like a very intelligent, eloquent man who really understands politics. This shows in his writing as well. Robinson is unafraid to tackle controversial topics, both on TV and in print. His most recent column, "Guns and responsibility," takes on the very divisive topic of gun control following the shootings in Tuscon and asks how a man who obviously had mental problems got his hands on such deadly weapons.
Robinson has a very reader-friendly writing style. He sometimes uses words that require a dictionary, but the following sentence may include a slang phrase or cliche. I think this makes Robinson appealing to people of varying education levels. A lawyer in Washington, D.C. and a college student in West Virginia may read the same Robinson column and find it equally enjoyable.
As a columnist, Robinson is writing his opinion. However I as a reader never felt as though he was pushing his views down my throat or forcing his opinion on me. Robinson's opinions are backed by facts based in research or interviews with sources closer to the action. For example, he talked to the Pima County (Ariz.) sheriff about the shootings in Tuscon and why he thinks the incident occurred. He also quoted statistics from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
I noticed Robinson does not use "I" or "me" often in his writing. He gets his views across without having to remind readers that this is what he thinks. I think that is the mark of a good opinion writer. When I read op-ed pieces or editorials, I don't want to see "I think this...." or "My thoughts on this are..." Instead, I want to read a solid, intelligently written argument based in fact. Nowhere in Robinson's writing does he use devices to appeal to emotion, incite anger or create fear.
Robinson's columns are very well thought out and easy to understand. When he appears on "Morning Joe," he does not act arrogant or condescending in any way. This is reflected in his writing, and I think that is why I and many others find him so appealing.
On the show, he seems like a very intelligent, eloquent man who really understands politics. This shows in his writing as well. Robinson is unafraid to tackle controversial topics, both on TV and in print. His most recent column, "Guns and responsibility," takes on the very divisive topic of gun control following the shootings in Tuscon and asks how a man who obviously had mental problems got his hands on such deadly weapons.
Robinson has a very reader-friendly writing style. He sometimes uses words that require a dictionary, but the following sentence may include a slang phrase or cliche. I think this makes Robinson appealing to people of varying education levels. A lawyer in Washington, D.C. and a college student in West Virginia may read the same Robinson column and find it equally enjoyable.
As a columnist, Robinson is writing his opinion. However I as a reader never felt as though he was pushing his views down my throat or forcing his opinion on me. Robinson's opinions are backed by facts based in research or interviews with sources closer to the action. For example, he talked to the Pima County (Ariz.) sheriff about the shootings in Tuscon and why he thinks the incident occurred. He also quoted statistics from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
I noticed Robinson does not use "I" or "me" often in his writing. He gets his views across without having to remind readers that this is what he thinks. I think that is the mark of a good opinion writer. When I read op-ed pieces or editorials, I don't want to see "I think this...." or "My thoughts on this are..." Instead, I want to read a solid, intelligently written argument based in fact. Nowhere in Robinson's writing does he use devices to appeal to emotion, incite anger or create fear.
Robinson's columns are very well thought out and easy to understand. When he appears on "Morning Joe," he does not act arrogant or condescending in any way. This is reflected in his writing, and I think that is why I and many others find him so appealing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)