link: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/30/blagojevich.gone/index.html
I just found this article very interesting as it was very much about the symbolism of taking away the images and other traces of the former governor that could be found in the state capitol. The author writes that a crew "brought down the 5-foot-high sign [with Blagojevich's image on it] to make the official change" almost immediately after the Senate had voted to impeach Blagojevich. I thought it was interesting how the author of the article refers to taking down the sign as an "official change," almost as though it was only by removing the reminders of the governor that he was completely stripped of his power.
One of the maintenance workers was quoted as saying "Was that quick enough?" which exemplifies the eagerness to move on from the whole embarassing situation.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
"This isn't Milli Vanilli"
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/22/famed-quartet-played-recordings-tunes-inauguration/
I just thought this article was kind of interesting. It reminded me of how everything is expected to be perfect for the presidential inauguration. And I was reminded of the pressure that is on the shoulders of the musicians. To me, the presidential inauguration appears to be alot about ceremony. It's a huge deal, obviously, but it seems almost vital that everything go exactly as planned. It was interesting to me, too, how much those involved felt that he had to justify the decision the quartet made. Obviously a lot of people were watching the historic moment and they wanted it to go perfect, so they had justify themselves themselves to the audience, but also, I believe, it had something to do with the media. As we all know the media can be very attacking and I'm sure somewhere someone would have jumped on the "meaning behind the the pre-recording" or the huge "scam" of them not amplifying their music for everyone to hear if they hadn't explained it themselves. But it's still kind of sad really how, even such a simple and well-thought out decision would have likely been blown out of proportion.
I just thought this article was kind of interesting. It reminded me of how everything is expected to be perfect for the presidential inauguration. And I was reminded of the pressure that is on the shoulders of the musicians. To me, the presidential inauguration appears to be alot about ceremony. It's a huge deal, obviously, but it seems almost vital that everything go exactly as planned. It was interesting to me, too, how much those involved felt that he had to justify the decision the quartet made. Obviously a lot of people were watching the historic moment and they wanted it to go perfect, so they had justify themselves themselves to the audience, but also, I believe, it had something to do with the media. As we all know the media can be very attacking and I'm sure somewhere someone would have jumped on the "meaning behind the the pre-recording" or the huge "scam" of them not amplifying their music for everyone to hear if they hadn't explained it themselves. But it's still kind of sad really how, even such a simple and well-thought out decision would have likely been blown out of proportion.
The Name Game
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/01/21/obama-called-different-names-inaugural-ceremony/
Ever since Barack Obama's middle name, "Hussein", was made public knowledge people have feared the worst, being reminded, of course, of Saddam Hussein. As this article points out, Obama's middle name was downplayed during his campaign, supporters obviously worried it would cost him votes. But I was surprised to read this article after the election, in which the author claims significance behind the announcer calling Obama "Barack H. Obama" and the Rev. Joseph Lowery's addressing him simply as "Barack Obama." I thought we'd moved beyond the matter of his second name. To be honest, I hardly noticed the fact that Obama was addressed in three slightly different ways throughout the inauguration. It didn't seem significant to me. Obviously to some people it is though.
"The tradition is that they use all three names and I will follow the tradition," said Obama on the matter, after he became the President-elect last November. I'm glad he decided this. I see no reason why he should be feared for a name. He didn't name himself after all, and it's his decisions that we should be judging by as he prepares to lead the country.
Ever since Barack Obama's middle name, "Hussein", was made public knowledge people have feared the worst, being reminded, of course, of Saddam Hussein. As this article points out, Obama's middle name was downplayed during his campaign, supporters obviously worried it would cost him votes. But I was surprised to read this article after the election, in which the author claims significance behind the announcer calling Obama "Barack H. Obama" and the Rev. Joseph Lowery's addressing him simply as "Barack Obama." I thought we'd moved beyond the matter of his second name. To be honest, I hardly noticed the fact that Obama was addressed in three slightly different ways throughout the inauguration. It didn't seem significant to me. Obviously to some people it is though.
"The tradition is that they use all three names and I will follow the tradition," said Obama on the matter, after he became the President-elect last November. I'm glad he decided this. I see no reason why he should be feared for a name. He didn't name himself after all, and it's his decisions that we should be judging by as he prepares to lead the country.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Facebook....how do we solve the problem of who's really who?
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7807466.stm
I thought this article was really interesting because it details with a specific
case of impersonation on Facebook. I know that on the terms of service etc.
Facebook warns you that you must only sign up as yourself and that it must be
your true name (not that anyone really pays much attention to this part). I also
know that lots of times, especially with public figures, people wonder if the
account is legitimately operated by the person whose name appears in the
profile. And to be honest, there is no real way to know for sure. In fact,
there's not really anyway to make sure that the people you are "friending" are
actually your friends. But the people who use Facebook just have to deal with
this and be careful, there's not much that can be done about it- right? Aren't
these kind of risks inherent with a "social networking" site? This is where it
gets interesting. When you defame some one on Facebook are you committing libel?
How is Facebook supposed to keep tabs on this kind of stuff?
Obviously when discrepancies are brought to notice something needs to be done to
sort out the issue but it seems to me that these kind of things are going to
happen all the time and it’s simply a constant risk in this “age of technology”
that if you are a public figure someone might try and defame you. Facebook is
now just one of the many ways people can try and challenge the reputations of
those they don’t like.
I think everyone needs to take whatever they read by a stranger on Facebook with
a grain of salt. This kind of stuff happens all the time on the internet,
Facebook is just another, perhaps easier, way of impersonating someone online.
Just because Facebook warns people to be truthful it doesn’t mean they abide by
this rule, I think users should treat the website as they would any other online
source, with caution.
I thought this article was really interesting because it details with a specific
case of impersonation on Facebook. I know that on the terms of service etc.
Facebook warns you that you must only sign up as yourself and that it must be
your true name (not that anyone really pays much attention to this part). I also
know that lots of times, especially with public figures, people wonder if the
account is legitimately operated by the person whose name appears in the
profile. And to be honest, there is no real way to know for sure. In fact,
there's not really anyway to make sure that the people you are "friending" are
actually your friends. But the people who use Facebook just have to deal with
this and be careful, there's not much that can be done about it- right? Aren't
these kind of risks inherent with a "social networking" site? This is where it
gets interesting. When you defame some one on Facebook are you committing libel?
How is Facebook supposed to keep tabs on this kind of stuff?
Obviously when discrepancies are brought to notice something needs to be done to
sort out the issue but it seems to me that these kind of things are going to
happen all the time and it’s simply a constant risk in this “age of technology”
that if you are a public figure someone might try and defame you. Facebook is
now just one of the many ways people can try and challenge the reputations of
those they don’t like.
I think everyone needs to take whatever they read by a stranger on Facebook with
a grain of salt. This kind of stuff happens all the time on the internet,
Facebook is just another, perhaps easier, way of impersonating someone online.
Just because Facebook warns people to be truthful it doesn’t mean they abide by
this rule, I think users should treat the website as they would any other online
source, with caution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
