This chart was taken in its entirety from http://www.therationalmajority.org/snap-facts/specialsnapfact-acomparisonofthe2012democraticandrepublicpartyplatformdocuments.
I'm re-posting it here and will research and go over each point, and what it means, more closely during the coming weeks.
Mediating the Media
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Friday, October 5, 2012
THE CORPORATE BAILOUT
People have been saying that Obama "shouldn't have given all that money to the banks and Chrysler." Here's what really happened:
Coming into office at
this point, Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise
known as “the stimulus package,” and launched recovery.gov, a website that
allows taxpayers to track spending from the Act. http://1.usa.gov/ibiFSs http://1.usa.gov/e3BJMk
For more information about what Obama has been doing since 2009, go to this site:
The corporate bailout
that everyone’s talking about was begun by George W. Bush in 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout),
the last year he was in office. These
are some of the organizations that were given money:
- 2008 - The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc.
- 2008 - Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac
- 2008 - The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
bailed out by the federal government and Berkshire Hathaway
- 2008 - Morgan
Stanley bailed out by The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ
- 2008-2009 - American International Group,
Inc. multiple times
- 2008 - Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008[16]
- 2008 - 2008 United Kingdom bank
rescue package
- 2008 - Citigroup
Inc.
- 2008 - General Motors Corporation and Chrysler LLC- though not technically a bailout, a bridge loan was given to the auto manufacturers by the U.S. government, this is referred to by most as a bailout.
In
addition, it wasn’t $150 billion that Bush gave to corporations; between the
open bailout and several other federal loan programs, corporations actually
benefitted by $1.2 trillion in taxpayer money:
“By
2008, the housing market’s collapse forced those companies to take more than
six times as much, $669 billion, in emergency loans from the U.S. Federal
Reserve. The loans dwarfed the $160 billion in public bailouts the top 10 got
from the U.S. Treasury, yet until now, the full amounts have remained secret.”
The Bush-led Great
Recession was costing the economy nearly 800,000 jobs per month by the time
President Obama took office. But by the end of his first year, the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and
stimulated the economy by 3.5%. http://reut.rs/i46CEE
Obama took over the
financial and banking rescue plan, and then he leaned on the banks and others,
and recovered virtually all of the
bail-out money. http://1.usa.gov/eA5jVS
http://bit.ly/eCNrD6
The economy is improving, but it takes time. Find out what's going on and VOTE!
Sunday, February 10, 2008
The Star Trek Show the Couldn't
It's ironic that the last Star Trek television show should be about the first journey of the Starship Enterprise. And that it should be a complete failure. I woke up this morning wondering why that was, and the answer came to me that there were two main problems: one was the premise of the show. The other, the casting.
Do those who watch Star Trek really care how it all began? Do we want to watch people who are like us using technology that's really not that advanced? Of course not: Star Trek is not about us as we are. It's about the far future because it's on the future that we base our hopes and dreams. We want to believe that there is a future in which human nature will triumph over itself and do the right thing. Consistently. Where everyone we know (and come to love) is a hero at one time or another, and the enemies all come from outside. Yes, each of the characters at one time or another may face situations where they grow and become more heroic, but the struggle with themselves is always in finding a greater truth than the one for which they began their struggle.
Star Trek Enterprise just couldn't cut it. The characters were not heroic and never became heroic. The future looked a lot like our world. The technology we so admire in the Star Trek series hadn't been invented yet. And then there was the casting.
I firmly believe that if you'd put the original crew of Star Trek, or that of Star Trek Next Generation or Voyager on the bridge of this early day Enterprise, the show would have flourished. There were many flaws in the casting of Enterprise but three stand out: the Vulcan, the captain, and casting in general.
First there was the Vulcan. We've seen Vulcans before, and we know that they're completely logical. But does that mean they have the personality of a fruitfly? Spock had charm and charisma, a wink in his eye that we never saw but knew was there. Another purely logical character, Data, was a computer, but he won us over with his boyish charm and desire to be human. The only charms Tapol every displayed in her wooden portrayal of a Vulcan, were caught up inside her skin-tight body suit. And they looked fake too.
Captain Archer was a better actor than Tapol, but he never had the looks or the passion of Captain Kirk, could not make us believe with the authority of Captain Picard, nor rouse our sympathies with the compassion of Janeway. Archer just didn't have the power or skill to claim the bridge of the Enterprise and make us believe it was real.
Finally, the casting director chose two characters in the crew who looked so much alike onscreen, it was difficult to tell them apart.
All in all, casting was a disaster, the premise of the show missed the boat (at least we should have seen the first inklings of the dream) and Star Trek Enterprise went down in flames, the first Star Trek failure in forty years. We can only hope this outcome will not make Hollywood producers think that Star Trek can no longer provide monetary rewards. Because there's still an audience dreaming of technology that will save us from ourselves and build us ships that will take us to the stars, where we will behave like heros and always be the good guys.
Do those who watch Star Trek really care how it all began? Do we want to watch people who are like us using technology that's really not that advanced? Of course not: Star Trek is not about us as we are. It's about the far future because it's on the future that we base our hopes and dreams. We want to believe that there is a future in which human nature will triumph over itself and do the right thing. Consistently. Where everyone we know (and come to love) is a hero at one time or another, and the enemies all come from outside. Yes, each of the characters at one time or another may face situations where they grow and become more heroic, but the struggle with themselves is always in finding a greater truth than the one for which they began their struggle.
Star Trek Enterprise just couldn't cut it. The characters were not heroic and never became heroic. The future looked a lot like our world. The technology we so admire in the Star Trek series hadn't been invented yet. And then there was the casting.
I firmly believe that if you'd put the original crew of Star Trek, or that of Star Trek Next Generation or Voyager on the bridge of this early day Enterprise, the show would have flourished. There were many flaws in the casting of Enterprise but three stand out: the Vulcan, the captain, and casting in general.
First there was the Vulcan. We've seen Vulcans before, and we know that they're completely logical. But does that mean they have the personality of a fruitfly? Spock had charm and charisma, a wink in his eye that we never saw but knew was there. Another purely logical character, Data, was a computer, but he won us over with his boyish charm and desire to be human. The only charms Tapol every displayed in her wooden portrayal of a Vulcan, were caught up inside her skin-tight body suit. And they looked fake too.
Captain Archer was a better actor than Tapol, but he never had the looks or the passion of Captain Kirk, could not make us believe with the authority of Captain Picard, nor rouse our sympathies with the compassion of Janeway. Archer just didn't have the power or skill to claim the bridge of the Enterprise and make us believe it was real.
Finally, the casting director chose two characters in the crew who looked so much alike onscreen, it was difficult to tell them apart.
All in all, casting was a disaster, the premise of the show missed the boat (at least we should have seen the first inklings of the dream) and Star Trek Enterprise went down in flames, the first Star Trek failure in forty years. We can only hope this outcome will not make Hollywood producers think that Star Trek can no longer provide monetary rewards. Because there's still an audience dreaming of technology that will save us from ourselves and build us ships that will take us to the stars, where we will behave like heros and always be the good guys.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Mediating the Media
The media have tremendous power. Television and movies, in particular, can make or break the weak and strong alike, as people believe what they see. Because of this power, one would assume that those who make decisions that can bring down presidents and unseat kings would do so responsibly. But this is not the case. Instead of acting in the interest of the people, the media only act in self interest. From top to bottom, from left to right, from entertainment to militainment, the media plays with our minds and rarely provides us with anything but watered down truth and outright lies.
Many have taken on the media in a big way. For instance, take a look at the video, Weapons of Mass Deception. While I'm not so ambitious (just don't have the time), I do have a pet peeve with the entertainment media that I want to write about: so-called "historical" drama and so-called "true" stories that have been doctored, fictionalized, and altered beyond reason. Believe me, the true story of Queen Elizabeth I is far more thrilling than the fictional movie of that name starring Cate Blanchett. It seems that no one wanted to bother with research. Or maybe it's just egotism.
Some might say it doesn't matter. Who cares what the truth is about a queen dead four hundred years? But the point of history is to learn from it. If we are fed nothing but lies, what can we learn? Of what use is it? And let's not even start on the erosion of logic in our children due to television programming and video games.
In any case, the enemy is disinformation, and we live in the tower of Babel. This is my small way of contributing to sanity, historical accuracy, and truth.
Deborah
Many have taken on the media in a big way. For instance, take a look at the video, Weapons of Mass Deception. While I'm not so ambitious (just don't have the time), I do have a pet peeve with the entertainment media that I want to write about: so-called "historical" drama and so-called "true" stories that have been doctored, fictionalized, and altered beyond reason. Believe me, the true story of Queen Elizabeth I is far more thrilling than the fictional movie of that name starring Cate Blanchett. It seems that no one wanted to bother with research. Or maybe it's just egotism.
Some might say it doesn't matter. Who cares what the truth is about a queen dead four hundred years? But the point of history is to learn from it. If we are fed nothing but lies, what can we learn? Of what use is it? And let's not even start on the erosion of logic in our children due to television programming and video games.
In any case, the enemy is disinformation, and we live in the tower of Babel. This is my small way of contributing to sanity, historical accuracy, and truth.
Deborah
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)