'Duck Dynasty' debate explodes from TV to dinner tables, water coolers

 

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/12/20/duck-dynasty-cant-imagine-show-going-on-without-phil/

 

 

SUMMARY

        This article goes over the suspension of Phil Robertson from the popular TV show 'Duck Dynasty' due to his anti-gay comments. The suspension is for an undisclosed amount of time and there is discussion about whether or not he will be reinstated. It talks about he and his family focus their lives around Christianity and belief in the Bible, and their belief that homosexuality is a sin stems from this religious focus. The show has set records for non-fictional TV shows, having 11.8 million people tune in for their fourth season premiere. The studio, however, calls Mr. Robertson's comments, "unacceptable to fans, viewers, and the network alike." In relation to thins, the former Alaskan governor wrote on her Facebook status,  “Free speech is an endangered species."

 

ANAYLSIS

        What struck me most from this article was Sarah Palin's comment about freedom of speech being endangered. Despite what your beliefs might be about homosexuality, do you have a right to talk about it? Those who watch the show Duck Dynasty realize that this family is a very Christian family. They pray at the end of every show and a lot of the content delves into their family beliefs and traditions. Viewers should already be aware of their beliefs, so why such an outrage when Mr. Robertson expresses those beliefs? If Miley Cyrus says similar comments and audiences laugh, why the outrage when Mr. Robertson does? I don't understand the differences in tolerance here.

         Personally, I believe that people have a right to choose homosexuality if they so deserve, or, as they believe, are born with it. That's fine. That lifestyle shouldn't interfere with the their rights for any reason. But people also have a right to oppose that lifestyle and make their beliefs clear, too.

         Simply put, if you have a problem with what Mr. Robertson said, then don't watch the show. 

What Now? Obama, Congress Faces New Budget Deadlines after Stopgap Deal

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/17/what-now-congress-faces-new-budget-deadlines-after-stopgap-deal/

 

SUMMARY

        This article (as with all my others) came from Fox News. It is, shall we say, the Republican view on the stopgap deal. It may be a half-win, half-loss, for the Republicans, and they're pointing out that this deal just delayed the issue. There are still the same issues that need to be resolved, we just are taking a little bit more time to do it so that it looks like we're making progress.

 

ANALYSIS

        I really just think that this deal was agreed upon was because the Republicans are beginning to realize that it really DOES look like an immature tantrum coming from them. They are not getting their way just because they're making a lot of noise, and they are starting to irate some, if not a lot, of people.

        The stopgap did nothing, really, except to keep the government going while they bicker about the same issues for an undisclosed amount of time. I wasn't in favor of the shutdown, but I wish something productive had come from it. By "productive" I don't mean that the Republicans got everything they fought for, rather, that we had learned the art of compromise.

        Issues like this make me sick inside. It seems so immature that we are so completely unable to compromise-- both sides are unwilling, for the most part, to differ in the slightest from their strict beliefs and ideals. We've got this mentality that it's "our way or the highway". This has got to change. 

Dr. Manny: America, Stop Turning to Social Media for Information on ObamaCare

 

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/10/17/dr-manny-america-stop-turning-to-social-media-for-information-on-obamacare/

 

SUMMARY

        This tells about how many people are relying on social media not only to get their information on matters such as ObamaCare, but to express their opinions on it as well. There used to be a time when people would go to the experts in order to get the proper information. We relied on the people who knew something about it to gather information so that we could know about it. Instead of research however (oh, no! hard work!), people are relying on easy-access sources like Twitter and Instagram.

 

 

ANAYLSIS

        Ours is the generation of easy-access. Something that only years ago you would have to go to the library in order to figure out, you can have in your phone in seconds. With information this easy, we've gotten lazy. You wouldn't go to twitter for information on a fatal heart disease that you have, you'd go to a doctor. So why are we going to those places for political information? Maybe the threat isn't imminent enough for you. It's not staring you right in the face.

        What do we need to wake us up enough to go to the right sources? Hopefully not something as drastic as shutting down the entire government.... right?

        We've talked repetitively in class about being an informed voter. How do you become an informed voter? I'll give you a hint. It's not through Facebook. It's not through Vine. It's not through Pintrist, even. You need to put forth some effort to be able to be intelligent enough to discern what you believe is right.

        It's easy to be swayed to one belief or another when you don't know all the facts or you only get it from one source. Maybe this is why we such clusters of political beliefs (like maybe the huge herding of Republicans in Utah?), because you don't get much diversity in those areas, no room to learn to think. You go along with the popular belief because, for the most part, it's the only belief.

        As Dr. Manny put it quite profoundly, "Wake up America". 

 

Eating Bacon Lowers Sperm Quality, Study Shows

 

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/10/16/eating-bacon-lowers-sperm-quality-study-shows/?intcmp=latestnews

 

SUMMARY

 

        This article was about how in a study presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2013 Annual Meeting in Boston, it was shown that men who consumed over half a portion of processed meat like bacon reduced the sperm quality. The study was done by researchers from Harvard University. There is some debate, still, as to whether or not this study is accurate.

 

 

ANAYALSIS

 

        The honest reason that I posted this article is to state that sometimes no news is good news. There comes a point where all the news is about political things, such as the much discussed government shutdown, or there isn't any news at all. We talk about the "uniformed masses" in class. Well, how is studies on sperm quality informing them? Media is such a major part of getting people to know what's going on, but all I've heard from the media lately is the exact same drabble about the shut down for a few minutes, some radical spiels, and then stuff like this. There is so much else going on in the world then things like this, but our greatest source of information is wasting it on radicals and garbage. 

 

Privacy Threat Found In ObamaCare Website

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/16/obamacare-website-poses-privacy-threat/

 

 

SUMMARY

 

        This article talks about some privacy threats that are believed to be in the website for ObamaCare. The statement of "You have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system" does not appear in the terms and conditions, and this, among other things, has got people worried.

 

 

ANAYLYSIS

 

        This article was published after the government shut down. I think that little note is important to take into account before reading this article. The Republicans are already steamed up about this issue enough to shut down the government, and now an article comes out talking about privacy threats--another big issue for Republicans. This article also came from Fox news, and, as we all know and love, Fox news is a very biased news source (as, I am sure, there are plenty of equally biased liberal sites).

        I think this demonstrates how, as we've discussed in class, the more vocal few of the parties are, well, more vocally involved. I feel as though this article is almost justification towards the government shut down. I am sure that there are many Republicans who are thinking that the this is a very immature move, and this is their way of defending their actions. 

Romance Gone Sour: Behind the Media's Anti-Obama Backlash

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/19/romance-gone-sour-behind-medias-anti-obama-backlash/

 

 

SUMMARY

        This article is concerning the media surrounding Mr. Obama at this time. It discusses a different article that came out the other day titled, "What's Wrong With President Obama?" http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/whats-wrong-with-barack-obama-96970.html?hp=t2_3

The article that I read, however, discussed how the media is portraying Mr. Obama at this time. It talks about how Mr. Obama used to be "revered" by the media, and now it seems that they have turned their backs on him. It even compared him to former president Mr. Bush, who still had his "conservative cheerleaders" behind him.

 

ANAYLSIS

        The other day in class, we were talking about how the media is the way the world gets access to the news. How you see what is happening is going to affect how you respond to what is happening. Earlier, there was more support for President Obama and his campaign. The tides, however, seem to have switched. Now we're getting a strong dislike for Mr. Obama and all his efforts as president. This is where the influencing of the media is really coming into play. This article was from Fox News. It is obviously biased, and that needs be addressed going into this discussion. If a similar, but liberal, newspaper were to do a similar article about the same subject, we would get a completely different aspect on it.

        I think what we can really gain from this article is that media influences, and the type of media that you listen to or watch will hold some sway over your opinion. Be careful what you let influence you.

        

 

‘Northampton Clown’ Thrills, Scares British Town as Mystery Entertainer Haunts  Shadows 

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2013/09/19/creepy-clown-terrorizing-english-city-breaks-silence-says-just-wanted-to-amuse/?intcmp=latestnews

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/northampton-clown-thrills-scares-british-town-article-1.1459375

 

http://www.eonline.com/news/460698/northampton-clown-terrorizes-u-k-town-at-night-but-says-he-just-wants-to-amuse-people

 

SUMMARY
        This is an interesting story that I found online. I checked a few different sites for this story, and posted them all above. Basically, It tells of a man in the town of Northampton who dresses up as Pennywise from Stephen King's movie "It". He goes around at night, sometimes with balloons, and sometimes with a freaky-looking teddy bear. It's also been said that he's gone around to a few people's houses offering to paint their window sills, even though it's obvious that he doesn't have any painting supplies on him. One person claimed that he had a knife, though the man denies it.
        There are some that find him not-so-funny. Or, terrifying. The guy has come out and said, though, that he is just doing it to make people laugh. He says that it's like a scary movie, he scares people, and then they can laugh about it later.

ANAYLIS
        I'm not quite sure what to think about this one. It makes me wonder if it's disturbing the piece for him to be going around freaking people out. I'm fine with him doing it, I kind of think it's funny, but there are people out there (a lot) who have serious fears about clowns. The question has also been raised by people if this is just a prank, or if this guy is a mad man. It has obviously freaked some people out.
        I don't think that he is doing anything illegal by doing this, but I want to know, how safe do you feel with a freaky clown going around at night? Hmm. I've seen a lot stranger.
        So although there're a lot of people who would like to keep him off of the streets, I'm fine with it. He can do what he wants. I think people need to develop more of a sense of humor when addressing these sort of things.

August 31, 2013

 

 

'Free' Benefits in ObamaCare Come With Hidden Costs

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/30/free-benefits-in-obamacare-come-with-hidden-costs/?test=latestnews

 

 

 

SUMMARY

 

        This article talks about the widely debated issue of ObamaCare. There is the theme of "there's no such thing as a free lunch." Despite the "free checkups, free mammograms, immunizations and other basic services" (President Obama), taxes are going to have a hay-day with insurance, medical equipment, and drugs. There will still be costs, just hidden in a way that doesn't seem so obvious at first. Someone will still have to pay, just in a way that it will still appear to be "free".

 

 

ANAYLSIS

 

        There's an obvious bias that trends throughout this piece. First, you need to realize that this came from Fox News, so it's taking a strict Republican view. The facts that they are looking to are from Republicans; the experts they interviewed are Republican; the Journalist that wrote this piece was Republican; the audience reading it is mainly Republican. This goes back to the very first of the year when Mrs. McMurray over-viewed the importance of knowing who is talking and why. You see the influence of one's political party coming through the media that is being read or watched. Because of this bias, we don't understand the full spectrum of the story. We clearly see the conservative view of ObamaCare--the belief that there are hidden costs, the fear of tax dollars being raised-- but we don't see the liberal point of view.

 

        Even if we were to read an article about this same topic from a far left, we would still come out with high amounts of bias. The Republicans may see ObamaCare as an extreme infringement on their rights, and the Democrats may see it as a necessary and beneficial program, but the truth may be somewhere in the middle. I'm generalizing here. Not all Democrats stand in favor of ObamaCare, and not all Republicans are collecting pitchforks and torches, just waiting for their chance to run President Obama out of office.

 

        There may be some truth to this article. ObamaCare may, in fact, have hidden price tags that aren't obvious at first glance. This begs the question, though, are those hidden price tags worth the paying? There is an analogy used in this article, comparing these costs to owning a restaurant with the government's set price for a hamburger: "Let’s say you told them they can only charge $10.95 for that burger, but the cost of the beef, the bun, the vegetables, keeps rising. That squeezes their profit margins. Eventually they have no profit and they're losing money on producing that burger." (Dr. Ramin Oskoui). 

       Republicans--using a generalized extremist term-- would be appalled by the price of the hamburger and the lack of profit for the business owner. On the opposite side of extremist spectrum, Democrats would find the need for the hamburger to outweigh the lack of profits for the restaurant owner. These two scenarios, however, are not the only ones.

 

        My stance on this, as with many other topics, is a need for a little bit of both. ObamaCare is not the best option, I suppose, but it's not the worst, either. There is a need for some of the benefits that ObamaCare would provide, especially for those who do not have the financial stability as many of those who argue passionately against this program. But the opinion of those who are more financially sound must also be taken into account. We talked about how this government is supposed to recognize the majority without infringing on the rights of the minority. The minority is not always the poor starving Americans that we are led to believe that it is. The majority--those who would reap the benefits of ObamaCare-- may hurt the majority--those who would end up paying for ObamaCare.

 

        We have a right to earn money, to make a living for ourselves and our families, to advance ourselves in life. When does this right interfere with the right of those to receive insurance?

 

        Overall, I agree and disagree with the article I read. I understand the bias that is taken when this article was written, and also the bias that would be equally as strong in an article of the opposing view. There are things that are necessary about this program and the issue at hand, but this isn't the best way to handle it.