Singapore PM Warns Religion Threatens Stability

http://www.nwasianweekly.com/2009/08/singapore-pm-warns-religion-threatens-stability/

This post is different from my my previous posts because it deals with an article about Singapore, rather than a left right issue. I think it is important to examine what is going on in other countries and think about how our knowledge is affected by the media. I feel that this article is very important to examine because it deals with some very important internal issues that Singapore faces. This article discusses that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong recently discussed the potential to harm the well being of his nation. This article is very interesting and there are several important issues that can be examined from this. The Prime Ministers main warning was that so called “aggressive preaching” can affect the well being of his nation. He explains the importance of the different religions of Singapore to co exist with little conflict. The key to this harmonious society is to not allow one religion attempt to take over the country because this can create bitter, and even hostile feelings towards one another. The article seems to mainly be focusing at evangelical Christians but he makes sure to point out that this must be followed by all of Singapore’s religious groups. The reporter then gives a list of the different religions in Singapore with their percentage of the population to show the religious diversity of the nation. It is clear that Singapore is a religiously diverse country which does indeed call for much care to be taken. Lee states a very interesting case of a Christian couple that was jailed for handing out religious pamphlets where they were unwanted. He explains that forcing your religion on others can create hostility which can lead to inner turmoil. This article was very enlightening and much can be learned from it.

To me the social and political implications of this article are very obvious. Lee is smart for recognizing the potential destruction that religious differences can cause. Singapore is a very diverse nation for its size and when that many different religions are in such a close proximity to one another tremendous caution must be used to keep them peaceful. I do question whether of not this is taking things to far both politically and socially. While on paper Singapore is a democracy, it is cleat that its citizens are not as free as they should be. The two things here strike me as wrong are, the prime minister speaking out against religious groups who are not being violent, and jailing citizens for passing out pamphlets. I think that actions like this can lead to oppression, which is far more dangerous than slightly heated religious groups. To truly overcome religious differences people must learn how to live with slight discomfort sometimes and not to always act on this. It seems the Prime Minister is potentially creating the very problem he is trying to stop. This effects both the political and the social sector because it could potentially rip the country apart. While it doesn’t relate directly to the economics of Singapore, it certainly could effect the economic sector if religious persecution were to begin. While Singapore is usually good at being appealing to the west, this article raises some red flags in my mind.

In this post I have chosen to examine how the our media affects how we look at other countries. I wrote my review on this article without discussing possible bias that our media might have against eastern economic powers. I would really like to know how others feel about what I have taken from the article and how my view of the issue could be altered because of where i obtain my media. THANKS

Hannity Appologises to Stewart

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8HeJuBcI3Y&feature=fvhl

I know this is a pretty short clip but i feel like it is definitely worth talking about. Apparently John Stewart called fox out for playing a false clip on television. I think this clip illustrates some good as well as bad things about the media. One good thing about having two sides that hate each other is that they keep a watchful eye on the other side to see if they screw up. I have spent most of my blogs bashing the two party system and its many flaws and haven't really pointed out any good aspects. This is clearly an example of how we can benefit from a two party system. I would also like to point out the cheap shot that Sean Hannity threw in at the end about thanking Stewart and his writers for watching the program. It almost seemed as though Hannity was about to swallow his pride for once and not have the last word, and then he made this comment. I used to listen to his radio program until i became discussed by the way he handled any opposition. He never lets anyone finish a thought and plays distorted segments of clips to back up his points (something he accuses the left of doing.) I would have really liked to see him simply apologize and then leave it at that but I guess that will just never happen.

Southpark Election episode

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dr1sgcC6k4&feature=related

This is the only clip that I could find on this episode and it doesn't show the part that I would like to discuss, but it makes fun of the supreme Obama supporters. I am a pretty big South Park supporter so I am sorry if you don't agree with the show, but they are good at making relevant points. This episode was aired just two days after the election so like them or not you have to respect the dedication of Matt Stone and Trey Parker. I am always impressed with the lack of bias South Park shows by making fun of pretty much everything under the sun. My favorite thing about this episode was that they showed how crazy the extreme supporters were of both McCain and Obama. The Obama supporters through an out of control party in the street, while the McCain supporters hid in a bomb shelter. I wanted to talk mainly about how the McCain supporters were portrayed because it relates to my last post. When the McCain supporters found out about the election results they began to panic and by the end of the episode had all moved to a bomb shelter. I feel that this coincides with the point i was trying to make in my last post perfectly. While it is extremely funny and clearly over exaggerated, it does show the dangers of being terrified of the unknown.

Stewart interviews O'Reilly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUVuXgy3CVY

Here is the url for this interview. I don't think it is the whole thing and it could be cut in O'Reilly's favor because he is showing it on his own show but it still presents a good comparison with my previous posts. Once again I am impressed that these two do not get heated against one another. It is nice to watch people with different beliefs not yelling at one another. Stewart uses much more humor in his interview because his show is of a different nature. I take it that this interview was done shortly after Obama was elected. It starts by showing numerous clips of O'Reilly stating that he is is scared of what is in store for our countries future under Obama's leadership. While it may seem like a bunch of jokes Stewart actually tries to make the point that there is nothing to fear. I think O'Reilly's stance on the issue is representative of a large portion of the conservative population and is good to be addressed. There are certainly reasons to be concerned about Obama's leadership because so little is known about him but O'Reilly might take this to far. Being as concerned as O'Reilly is an overreaction and can cause more problems than it solves. Stewart does a great job of illustrating the overreaction by making fun of it. If there is something that we can learn from this, it is that we should try and keep a level head and not get lost by fearing the unknown. I plan on following this post with a South Park clip about conservatives overreacting to the outcome of the past election. Hopefully i can find the correct one.

O'Reilly interviews Stewart

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5pK7sK0i4A

I found this interview very interesting and blog worthy. I plan on following up this post with one on Stewart's interview of O'Reilly on The Daily Show. In this video Bill O'Reilly interviews John Stewart some time before the 2004 presidential election. Knowing how these two individuals differ in ideas and opinion, I felt that this interview was a must watch. I was kind of hoping that they would open up on each other a little more than they did but it still provides us with some excellent things to think about. The main thing that question that i would like to ask is if it seems like O'Reilly is almost attacking Stewart for not being bias enough? While Stewart is clearly more left leaning I enjoy his show because of its differences with the normal news. I think that it is good to sometimes laugh at things that need to be laughed at and The Daily Show is a great source for that. By taking the time to laugh at our system we can see how silly our politics really can be. Stewart repeatedly states that his show is for comedic purposes and should not be compared to news shows which is important to keep in mind. O'Reilly is not super harsh with his interview but does mildly attack and make fun of Stewart's program. He says that he is troubled by the fact that Stewart actually has an effect on the outcome of the election and repeatedly refers to his viewers as pot heads. It seems that he doesn't believe Stewart asks the appropriate questions and is to concerned with jokes. I think that media bias is at its worst during an election year and have a hard time getting any good information on the candidates through traditional news sources. I enjoy watching Stewart because he takes a different approach that does not simply enforce the beliefs of one side by putting down the other. I believe that O'Reilly does not see the importance in objectivity and only appreciates the opinions and beliefs of others if they are exactly the same as his......thoughts? I will try and post the other interview and discuss it asap.

Keeping up with Kim Kardashian and her African Development Model.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JPTHqTGIqc

WoW. I am really not even sure to begin with this one. It is almost hard to write a serious post about this one because it is so incredibly funny. This "interview" kind of reminds me of an 8th grader giving their very first presentation. I am sure I am not alone in saying that I find watching celebrities share their views on current events endlessly frustrating. I really don't know much about Kim Kardashianb besides she is famous because of a recent reality show. The only segment I wish to discuss is when she discusses how the diamond industry is really helping the country by creating jobs and infrastructure. She explains how she went to Botswana over the summer and thought that it was good to see how the diamonds helped the country. Letterman's response to this is pretty classic but it is almost sad to watch this poor girl make the statement. I am awestruck by how confident she seemed when she made this statement. I am no where near an expert on this subject but I have taken a few classed on developing nations and African development, so I know a little on the subject. While I am not familiar with the details of Ms. Kardashian's "vacation", I am nearly positive that she was not exactly ruffing it with the every day people of Botswana. This statement is both completely wrong and outright ignorant. The fact that anyone can even begin to think that they understand the condition of a developing country after a short summer visit is totally absurd, not to mention the fact that she probably never even left the hotel room. The real question that I am getting at is, while most of us do realize that she has no idea what she is talking about, how many people saw this and completely believed her. Kim Kardashian seems to be similar to Paris Hilton in the way that she is idolized by teenage girls all over the country that probably believed every word that was said. I realize that this is late night television and not BBC, but is it alright to tolerate statements like this being made. It is incredible how money and attention makes people think they are educated.....

Fox News Reporter Battles It Out!!

I watched this on youtube check it out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC7qZ6iywMY&feature=PlayList&p=F4D4B1E140070F5E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=26

If you don't have the time to check it out ill explain briefly what happened. There is an anti-gay church in Kansas somewhere that was protesting at a military burial. The reporter interviews a woman from the church. The interview gets heated right away and it is clear that the woman is out of her mind. Basically the rest of the movie is the reporter and the church member yelling bible verses over one another. It ends with the reporter calling the woman the devil.

So my initial reaction to this was laughter cause I love a good shouting match. I have to say I am getting sick of the split screen fights. Why was this woman even on any type of news Channel. She is obviously completely crazy and I cant figure out how it helps anyone to here her garbage. This is soft news at its finest and it needs to stop......feedback please

Media Civil War

The recurring theme in my blog has been the two party system and how flawed I feel it is. What I would like to do here is give a comparison and see what everyone thinks about it. Last semester I took a course on the politics of developing areas and we studied many war torn countries and the root of their conflicts. Not surprisingly most all of these struggles are ethnic related. To best explore these ethnic conflicts we divided countries into three groups according to ethnic diversity. The three groups are multi-ethnic, bi-ethnic and single ethnic. One might assume that the countries with the most internal conflicts would be the multi-ethnic countries but this is not the case. Most of the time citizens of a multi-ethnic country learn how to put their differences aside and develop a strong sense of nationalism. A perfect example of a multi-ethnic country is the U.S. The countries where we see the most civil-conflict are the ones that are bi-ethnic. In countries where there are only two major ethnic groups there is almost always civil conflict. An example of this is the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. I would like to compare this to politics. To me it seems that the tension between republicans and democrats is constantly growing and is fueled largely by the media. My previous blog about fox attacking Obama is a perfect example of this. It seems as though our media is the source for a potential political civil war. The key to civil peace in a country is nationalism, which brings countries together to accomplish great things. How can our media come together and learn how to get passed this two party system. I am tired of turning on CNN and listen to them bash republicans and turning on FOX to them ripping democrats. Is there any hope for this to end or are we doomed to an endless media and political civil war….let me know if you have any thoughts on this.

Obama Wants To Control The Web....come on FOX

I pulled up the Fox news website last night and under "Breaking News" read, "OBAMA WANTS TO CONTROL THE WEB." There are several points that I would like to touch on here so I guess I will start by asking, is this really breaking news? This is a textbook example of the dramatization bias that we have talked about in class over and over. The fact that this made the breaking news page on Fox really exposes how bias the network is. We all realize that Fox is the most conservative network but I see this as way over the top and I am not even a democrat. This "breaking news" story reminds me of something that may be a topic of discussion on Hannity but for it to be on the front of the Fox home page blows me away. If you have read any of my previous blogs you know that I am not a big fan of the two party system and this headline is a prime example of why that is. It was clear to me before I even read this article that its purpose was not to inform me of the current administrations ideas for monitoring the web but to infuse the "right" and turn them further against their president.

The article it self is even more troubling to me than the title. The main issue in the article is that a White House staffer named Susan Crawford wants to turn the internet into a utility like water and electricity. The article argues that this would give the government full control to monitor the internet and place regulations on it. The article then talks about a group called Free Press which is an avid supporter of internet regulation. The leader of the group is an alleged Marxist who claims that internet regulation is the beginning of a socialist revolution.

What is truly amazing to me is how much this article angers me when I am against government control of internet. I really wish that this article did not seem so bias so I would feel better about reading it. It just seems that the whole purpose of the article isn't to inform but is to scare. It really bothers me that our most watched news channel is willing to put something this obviously bias on their front page. The title is "Obama Wants to Control The Web" and Obama is only actually mentioned in the article two times. For all we know all that could have happened was a White House staff member made the wrong comment and Obama has nothing to do with this. I am really disappointed in Fox news.

What if it happened again

So I just got through watching a very interesting documentary in class about how the media greatly affected the public opinion on the war in Iraq. It showed how after 911 there was really little to no criticism on the bush administration from mainstream media outlets such as the Washington Post. The documentary seemed to be trying to say that this lack of criticism played a major role in the decision to go into Iraq shortly after 911. Any questions of the Bush administration during this time were frowned upon and seen as unpatriotic. As a result of this when the attention was turned away from Afghanistan and to Iraq there was almost no immediate criticism which would have been extremely helpful in making a much more intelligent decision. This is a prime example of the media not being objective and how that can be detrimental to the country as a whole. This documentary really got me thinking about what would happen if we were attacked again? What would be different about both the medias reaction and the reaction of the general public? If the reactions did turn out to be different would this be good or bad? I personally feel that another terrorist attack would not bring the country together as it did in the wake of 911. I think that instead it would intensify the criticism of the Obama administration from right wingers such as John McCain and Dick Cheney. I also feel that talk radio hosts such as Rush and Hannity would begin attacking the current administration very quickly after an attack happened. I do not think that this would be a good thing for our country because it would split us down the middle. I think that we need to find a middle ground between these two different responses. It is important that if we ever were attacked again that we get behind our president and support him in what would be another difficult time for the nation, however we still would need to remain objective about how far we would follow. I really would like to know others opinions on these questions so please comment.

Left-Right Black-White

About two years ago, during the primaries I really became torn as to which political party that I should affiliate with. My whole life I was raised a Republican and had never really questioned it. It was during this time that I realized that there were issues on both sides that I agreed with and also ones that I didn't agree with. The one thing that has astonished me the most is how different the two parties claim to be but when all is said and done they seem to handle things in the oval office strikingly similar. Although I was not an Obama supporter I really liked his stance on bringing our troops home. I am not saying that I believe our motives for being in Iraq are all evil, I just feel that our present internal problems should hold a higher priority than problems overseas. I also agree with Obama and the democrats on environmental issues. A few things that I do not agree with are the tax reform and gun control. While I agree with the republican side on taxes and gun control I strongly disagree with them on issues such as the death penalty and stricter narcotics laws. And then you have the issues that are not simply black or white like in my opinion abortion, education and health care. I am not sure I agree with either side on these issues. For example I do feel that our health care system is flawed and needs work but I am not sure that a universal health care is really the best way to solve its problems. There is a reason that the United States offers many of the most highly trained doctors in the world and I feel that we would loose this if health care became state run. I am not going to go into why i feel the way I do on all of these issues because it is irrelevant to the point I am trying to convey. My point is that it seems impossible to me that one person can agree with either the left or right completely. What really frustrated me during the election is that because of our two party system I am forced to choose the lesser of two evils. I think that the media is one of the main reasons we are enslaved to the two party system. An example of this is the presidential debates that took place just a year ago. The debate was limited to the democratic and republican representative with no voice for other parties such as a libertarian representative. The justification for this was that there was not enough support for any other parties for them to have a spot in the debate. I understand that simply being allowed to participate in the debates would have changed the out come of the election, but it would allow other opinions to be heard. This could then lead to more national interest and increase support of other political parties. These are just some of my thoughts on how everything is not simply left or right.

Can We Really Blame The Media?

This is my first time blogging so I am not really sure how to start this off. I guess I will start by just giving some of my thoughts on the media and what it covers. Lately i have been hearing allot of people complain about the topics that are covered on the news. These complaints consist of the fact that there was way more news coverage on the death of Michael Jackson and his funeral than there has been on the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. This is a very valid point that says a great deal about our media and even our country. It shows that the majority of the American public care more about the latest celebrity to be locked up for driving under the influence than they do about many much more crucial issues. I agree that this is extremely frustrating, especially to those who care more about what is going on in the world than about Paris Hilton's lost Yorkie, but who is to really the one to blame? I was recently on both the Fox and CNN websites and noticed that a large majority of the headlines dealt with a some sort of T.V. Celebrity, or music icon. I don't think that all of the blame for this problem can be put on the networks. The main goal of these stations is to bring home a paycheck so they can pay their monthly bills, and to best accomplish this goal they have to keep up with the other networks in ratings. It is not the medias job to keep us perfectly informed about world issues, it is there job to keep us entertained so we will continue to watch. If what keeps us entertained is Lindsey Lohan's cocaine and Mel Gibson's drunken racial slurs than that is what we will continue to get.