Here we are, as my dad likes to say. I have a few weeks left in this, my final fall semester of school.
EVER.
I've posted the entirety of my Kansan.com blog posts up until today, and I'll post the last few as I write them.
I've learned a lot through this blog. I've learned that people won't like you if you're vocal. I comment quite a bit throughout the Kansan.com site, people regularly attack me and other columnists for their ideas.
(That's different from this, which is a bunch of people rightly attacking an idiot columnist for having no point to his column, and the columnist thinking he's all that.)
I think I've chosen the right profession, since God has guided me thus far, but good night is it going to be an experience. As I look back on my four years here, and long for the 300-level days of writing 4 articles per semester instead of 4 per week, I realize that the Journalism school's purpose is to thicken your skin.
After taking minor hits from professors, I got used to the idea that I was going to be criticized for the rest of my life.
And now, after working for two papers, writing a blog, criticizing other people's work (hopefully) civily, I know I can take it.
Thanks be to God for getting me ready.
Now I just have to find a job to practice it in. Anyone have any offers?
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Kansan Blog #10
Boy did this one really tick someone off. Crazy Kanye fans.
Kanye West's latest single, "Heartless," currently occupies the number 4 spot on the Billboard Hot 100 charts.
Does that mean that everyone likes him?
Oh no, not by a longshot.
AP put out an article a few days ago in which Kanye claimed to be this generation's Michael Jordan.
The article cited a few more bombastic statements in the interview, but this shall be the main one I focus on.
Michael Jordan was the guy when my generation was growing up. Everyone knew him. Even me, a kid who didn't care about sports and sat on the bench during 3rd grade soccer (yes, I really was that bad) knew who Michael Jordan was and admired him. Don't even ask me how many times I've seen Space Jam. Jordan was an icon of a now-bygone age, when the NBA was awesome and the Bulls reigned over all sports. Jordan was a wholesome role-model that all the kids wanted to be. Jordan was, in short, someone that everyone liked.
Not so with Kanye.
Sure, the first time I heard "Jesus Walks" I thought it was pretty catchy. And "Stronger" got me hooked on the original artist Daft Punk.
But once I started hearing about Kanye on the news, I realized what a pompous, over-confident, whiny brat he really is. In the AP article, he is quoted as saying, "I realize that my place and position in history is that I will go down as the voice of this generation, of this decade, I will be the loudest voice."
I must stop him and say:
Excuse me, Mr. West.
You are NOT the voice of my generation. You are NOT the voice of this decade. If anything, the musical geniuses of this century are U2 or Radiohead or Coldplay. Not some whiny music-stealing (refer back to Daft Punk) punk who has christened himself the "voice of this generation."
The flaw in comparing himself to Michael Jordan is that everyone liked him. You couldn't go up to someone, even if they were a diehard anti-Bulls fan (couldn't think of any other team that was good back then), they wouldn't hate Jordan.
Not so with Kanye. Some people don't like his music (including me). Some people don't like his attitude (including me).
You wouldn't see Jordan getting arrested at nightclubs in Europe for causing disturbances.
You wouldn't see Jordan having a fit because he didn't win an award.
You wouldn't see Jordan interrupting the opposing team's victory speech with a 3-year-old style tantrum, claiming that he should have won.
Kanye's done all of these.
In short, Kanye, you're not a role model. You're a horrible person. You're egotistical, you steal other people's work, you whine when you don't get what you want, and you're severely disturbed if you think that you're the "voice of this generation."
Excuse me, Mr. West. I'll let you know when I want a pompous airbag like you representing me. Until then, shut up and quit whining.
Kanye West's latest single, "Heartless," currently occupies the number 4 spot on the Billboard Hot 100 charts.
Does that mean that everyone likes him?
Oh no, not by a longshot.
AP put out an article a few days ago in which Kanye claimed to be this generation's Michael Jordan.
The article cited a few more bombastic statements in the interview, but this shall be the main one I focus on.
Michael Jordan was the guy when my generation was growing up. Everyone knew him. Even me, a kid who didn't care about sports and sat on the bench during 3rd grade soccer (yes, I really was that bad) knew who Michael Jordan was and admired him. Don't even ask me how many times I've seen Space Jam. Jordan was an icon of a now-bygone age, when the NBA was awesome and the Bulls reigned over all sports. Jordan was a wholesome role-model that all the kids wanted to be. Jordan was, in short, someone that everyone liked.Not so with Kanye.
Sure, the first time I heard "Jesus Walks" I thought it was pretty catchy. And "Stronger" got me hooked on the original artist Daft Punk.
But once I started hearing about Kanye on the news, I realized what a pompous, over-confident, whiny brat he really is. In the AP article, he is quoted as saying, "I realize that my place and position in history is that I will go down as the voice of this generation, of this decade, I will be the loudest voice."
I must stop him and say:
Excuse me, Mr. West.
You are NOT the voice of my generation. You are NOT the voice of this decade. If anything, the musical geniuses of this century are U2 or Radiohead or Coldplay. Not some whiny music-stealing (refer back to Daft Punk) punk who has christened himself the "voice of this generation."
The flaw in comparing himself to Michael Jordan is that everyone liked him. You couldn't go up to someone, even if they were a diehard anti-Bulls fan (couldn't think of any other team that was good back then), they wouldn't hate Jordan.
Not so with Kanye. Some people don't like his music (including me). Some people don't like his attitude (including me).
You wouldn't see Jordan getting arrested at nightclubs in Europe for causing disturbances.
You wouldn't see Jordan having a fit because he didn't win an award.
You wouldn't see Jordan interrupting the opposing team's victory speech with a 3-year-old style tantrum, claiming that he should have won.
Kanye's done all of these.
In short, Kanye, you're not a role model. You're a horrible person. You're egotistical, you steal other people's work, you whine when you don't get what you want, and you're severely disturbed if you think that you're the "voice of this generation."
Excuse me, Mr. West. I'll let you know when I want a pompous airbag like you representing me. Until then, shut up and quit whining.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
(Continued)...Excuse me Mr. Sommerville, I'd like you to not MAKE THINGS UP, make your opinion the voice of our generation when clearly you don't know much about our generation and whine because you don't like hip-hop music..
The Kansan probably won't post this because they don't like Kanye either. Ridiculous. He's a jerk I'll give you that, but if you deny him as one of the best artists of our generation you're not someone who truly appreciates music.
-A KU student
Wow, I don't even know where to begin.
Sampling was just one of the examples I thought of. I actually like hip-hop music, I read an article on West being arrested at a night club (while doing research for this blog post, I don't really keep up with celebrity news ever), those bands I listed are simply the most popular bands of the time that are the most musically talented, and accusing me of attacking West because he's black is BEYOND ridiculous. We are living in the 21st century. Where do you get off accusing me of such childish and 19th century behavior?
I don't like West because he self-appointed himself the voice of my generation, and is extremely vocal about how incredible he is. I don't like that. I don't like his tantrums either. THAT is why I wrote this blog post, not because I was trying to force everyone to like other bands. I live with a guy who hates Coldplay AND Kanye West. It's an opinion post, and I made my opinion clear.
You accuse me of making stuff up, sir, yet you have plenty of fiction in your lengthy post.
Better luck next time accusing me of all sorts of outrageous junk.
Also, http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/kanye-west-arrested-after-u-k-nightclub-1003891821.story
Kansan Blog #9 (No Letter Jackets)
Well KU Freshmen, you're almost done with your first semester here. Congratulations to those who are doing well, and better luck next time for those who have discovered you actually have to study in college.
I know you've been through tens of hours of orientation, everything from learning how to open those ridiculous dorm mailboxes (seriously, did any of you have a locker at any point in your life?), to what the best shortcut to get to Budig is.
You missed out on one thing, though.
HIGH SCHOOL IS NOW OVER.
I don't care if you went to some high school in southern Minnesota that had a graduating class of 250 (cough, me) or Blue Valley North with a graduating class with 6 million or something. You are now at KU, you are now a Jayhawk. Leave your "Class of 2008" t-shirts at home, and please don't wear them anymore.
This especially applies to letter jackets. I've been noticing the disturbing trend of freshmen (or even sophomores! no more Bond themed "007" shirts, PLEASE) lately, and it needs to stop.
You are Jayhawks now, dang it! Wear some Jayhawk pride, or at the very least, a generic Columbia or North Face coat. Letter Jackets are done once you walk across that stage at age 18. No more. Seriously.
By continuing to wear those jackets, not only do you look like a giant tool, but it shows how lazy you are. Just buy a new jacket! Sure letter jackets are warm, but come on! Get mom and dad to buy you a nice ski coat and the problem's solved.
Grow up, freshmen. If you want the rest of the university to take you seriously, stop claiming that you basically still belong in high school.
Besides, we see enough letter jackets when tours are going on.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
Caleb, I would agree that high school letter jackets should never be worn at a college campus under any circumstance. But you go over the line when saying no one should wear high school t-shirts. We're college kids. We're supposed to save money in any way. If the shirt fits, I say wear it. I'll admit. I still have about three or four high school shirts I still wear. And I honestly still like the way they look. But I do understand your point.
Gosh, and you're worried about Ben Cohen's column being "print-worthy"? Hm...
Are you serious? This is a blog, sir. Never goes to print, and my opinion is clearly stated.
Better luck next time.
Kansan Blog #8 (Day After The Election)
I woke up in the usual manner today. I worked a late shift until three a.m. and so I slept until about 10:30. I woke up, stumbled out into our living room, and turned on the T.V.
And guess what?
The world hadn't ended. The world hadn't been magically solved of all its problems, either.
Aside from the women on *shudder* The View, who were gushing and practically crying on network television, the world was moving forward. Cartoons were on, infomercials hawked their useless wares, and CNN was running the morning news gambit.
The world lives on.
Last night, we elected Sen. Barack Obama to be our 44thh president. This morning, we still live in America.
That will never change.
Facebook went crazy last night around 11:00p.m. when Sen. Obama was finally confirmed as the winner. Cries of disappointment and of horribly misspelled ecstasy echoed up and down the News Feed.
I got fed up after about three seconds.
I quickly changed my status to:
"Caleb Sommerville says chill out, America. http://www.kansan.com/blogs/reactor/2008/oct/05/unite/."
That link is, of course, a link to my October 5th blog on moving forward with ourselves after the election is over.
It still stands today.
I also wrote a quick note on my profile:
"Oh boy, here it comes. Cue the gloating, cue the whining, cue the doomsday marches.
Two words, America:
CHILL OUT.
Yes, Obama will be our next president. Yes, I do think we should not have elected him. But guess what? The people have spoken, and so be it. Stop the whining, stop the gloating. Take your McCain stickers off your cars; take your Obama signs out of your yard.
The election is done, our country will continue on, and above all:
God is still in control.
Daniel 2:21 says:
"He changes times and seasons; He sets up kings and deposes them. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning."
HE set Obama to be president. And HE will decide when he will not be. We needn't worry ourselves about the terrible or mind-blowingly amazing things that will happen to our country.
Obama's the president. Get behind him, support him, and shut up."
In other words, Move, America. Quit whining, quit gloating. It won't do us a dang bit of good. True, I don't like Obama and I don't think he'll be a good president, but guess what?
He's MY president.
I am a citizen of the United States, and we, as a country, elected him.
He's the people's president.
He's (or at least, will be in a few months) our leader. Stop complaining and leaving your McCain/Palin '08 and Ron Paul (seriously?) stickers on your car and start over.
Support Obama. He needs all the help he can get.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
eh, i'm gonna keep gloating a while. this is a pretty big deal, and it's not just another rich white man getting elected. this is someone who the people actually believe in, and has the potential to right a LOT of wrongs made over the past few years (and not just bush, and not just republicans).
Hey, guess what, everyone believes in who they vote for. This isn't anything new. It's another rich half-white guy getting elected, and gloating serves NO purpose but to simply divide the country even more.
Just move on with your life.
Thank you Caleb for writing this!!! I completely agree that we need to move on without whining and gloating!
Well put. Sure, I don't agree with everything Obama says, but my faith is not in a man who calls himself the president of a nation. My faith is in the One who created the nations. We cannot expect a president to be the Messiah or the anti-Christ. A wise friend said: "we can celebrate, or we can mourn.
But we better not become resigned. It’s we who can change things. Make a difference in the lives of the poor. Give care to the uncared-for. Make a commitment to peace. Live sustainable lifestyles.
It’s that truth that I’m banking on.
Four years of committed Christian living — peacemaking, loving, and neighboring — I’d vote for that." Thanks for your thoughts, Caleb. Right on.
I'm with you 100% Caleb. It might be easier for me to say it's time to move on, but it needs to happen. We are in the midst of costly war and economic crisis, and Mr. Obama can't fix it all by his own self. Cooperation is needed to help the nation move forward, and those who said around 11:00 last night the likes of, "what doesn't kill us only makes us stronger. But I'm pretty sure this is going to kill us!" or "congratulations America...we are officially f*cked," need to get over it. By the same token the person above who said he or she will gloat about this, you are worth less than worthless. Enjoy that your man won, but what will gloating and taunting the other side do? Give you two minutes of lowly, hollow satisfaction while you berate someone who is already upset? Grow up.
Caleb..this is Faith fyi...I see where you are coming from however if you dont realize it this is a very big moment in history...the 1st african american president...this is something people thought could never be...our parents and grandparents lived in a time when they had no rights whatsoever and now they are at a time when there is actually a black leader...do you think they will rejoice for a few seconds and then just move ahead...this marks history...realize that african americans can now tell their kids they can be whatever they want to be and have a Profound and significant example...but my anger stemmed from the fact that ppl were up and writing racist and ignorant comments...is that really necessary? having a black man as president is a problem for them???then they have no idea of the grounds that this country was founded on...i could go on for days about the stupidity I've seen...but i'll stop for now but you never answered my question...why shouldnt we have elected Obama and why should we have elected mccain?? The people chose Obama becasue they didnt want the same thing theyve had for the last 8 years so why would you vote mccain(I realize mccain isnt bush but you gotta admit his views are pretty much the same :)
And Elaine...your first line was so serious...." Sure, I don't agree with everything Obama says, but my faith is not in a man who calls himself the president of a nation. My faith is in the One who created the nations"
You better speak!!!
My answer to your question is located in detail in my previous blog post, "My Formal (Un)Endorsement."
That outlines the reasons I didn't like Obama. Don't have much of a choice, now.
And I never belittled the significance of having an African-American as president. What I am speaking out against is people who feel the need to either praise Obama as the single greatest thing to ever happen to this country (he has yet to serve) or to demonize him as the single worst thing to ever happen to this country (again, he has yet to serve). At this point, we don't know what he's going to do, and gloating/whining about it will only serve to divide our country further. We need to stand behind him as our country's leader.
Kansan Blog #7
T minus five days. On Tuesday we will all be glued to our TVs and computers, waiting anxiously (or not) to see who the next president of the United States will be. Around 35 percent of big newspapers all over the nation are endorsing candidates, telling readers why one should be voted for rather than the other.
Due to the nature of this election and the candidates, I feel it is my responsibility to write this, my first unendorsement for Senator Barack Obama.
Don’t get me wrong, I know who I’m voting for. But since everyone else is saying why one candidate is better than the other, some alternative voices should be heard.
I remember sitting in the dentist office waiting room a few years ago and seeing a cover article on Obama. It featured him looking majestically off into the distance while wearing a purple tie, the symbol of him bringing the red and blue together; of reaching across the aisle. I remember reading the article and thinking that this guy seemed too good to be true.
For the past few months, Senator Obama has been assaulting the airwaves with talk of “change” and how much we need “change” and how he’s going to “change” our government. Our government does indeed need change, there’s no doubt of that, but talking and doing are separate things.
When the economy went down the tubes, Senator John McCain suggested canceling the debate in favor of going back to Washington to help iron things out. Obama wouldn’t have it, and called the move purely political. McCain eventually caved, but his intentions were good. He had actually wanted to work on change, instead of just talking about it.
The fact is, Obama may have a lot of great-sounding ideas.
In fact, he promised to get us out of Iraq in the first few months of his term. No one could argue with that.
Then, according to the U.S. News and World Report, it morphed into the at least the first year. Now, he’s sitting at “appraising the situation.” Which means we could still be there indefinitely, the same view as McCain.
Is that change? If he’s changed his view on change, will his change indeed really be changing anything?
Figures on how much various programs will cost have normally favored Obama, but even in the New York Times editorial endorsing Obama, those figures can vary to favor either candidate. The Tax Policy Center estimated that the McCain health care plan would cost $1.3 trillion over 10 years, and the Obama plan $1.6 trillion. Using different and unstated assumptions, the Lewin Group estimated that the McCain plan would cost $2.05 trillion over 10 years and $1.17 trillion for Obama's plan.
Will Obama’s change be worth it if it ends up costing a lot more than we thought because of a numbers glitch?
There are simply too many questions left unanswered. And there is no perfect candidate this time around. Even the University Daily Kansan, a paper run by students, who are considered across the country to prefer Obama, admitted that the editorial board “went through some difficulty” deciding which candidate to endorse (they eventually endorsed Obama).
This isn’t saying vote for McCain. His Vice President choice was poor, some of his policies are flawed, and he’s not perfect. Neither is Ralph Nader or any other candidate.
This unendorsement is simply saying that falling for the frenzy over Obama and believing unconditionally in an amorphous “change” is not something to base a serious election on.
Due to the nature of this election and the candidates, I feel it is my responsibility to write this, my first unendorsement for Senator Barack Obama.
Don’t get me wrong, I know who I’m voting for. But since everyone else is saying why one candidate is better than the other, some alternative voices should be heard.
I remember sitting in the dentist office waiting room a few years ago and seeing a cover article on Obama. It featured him looking majestically off into the distance while wearing a purple tie, the symbol of him bringing the red and blue together; of reaching across the aisle. I remember reading the article and thinking that this guy seemed too good to be true.
For the past few months, Senator Obama has been assaulting the airwaves with talk of “change” and how much we need “change” and how he’s going to “change” our government. Our government does indeed need change, there’s no doubt of that, but talking and doing are separate things.
When the economy went down the tubes, Senator John McCain suggested canceling the debate in favor of going back to Washington to help iron things out. Obama wouldn’t have it, and called the move purely political. McCain eventually caved, but his intentions were good. He had actually wanted to work on change, instead of just talking about it.
The fact is, Obama may have a lot of great-sounding ideas.
In fact, he promised to get us out of Iraq in the first few months of his term. No one could argue with that.
Then, according to the U.S. News and World Report, it morphed into the at least the first year. Now, he’s sitting at “appraising the situation.” Which means we could still be there indefinitely, the same view as McCain.
Is that change? If he’s changed his view on change, will his change indeed really be changing anything?
Figures on how much various programs will cost have normally favored Obama, but even in the New York Times editorial endorsing Obama, those figures can vary to favor either candidate. The Tax Policy Center estimated that the McCain health care plan would cost $1.3 trillion over 10 years, and the Obama plan $1.6 trillion. Using different and unstated assumptions, the Lewin Group estimated that the McCain plan would cost $2.05 trillion over 10 years and $1.17 trillion for Obama's plan.
Will Obama’s change be worth it if it ends up costing a lot more than we thought because of a numbers glitch?
There are simply too many questions left unanswered. And there is no perfect candidate this time around. Even the University Daily Kansan, a paper run by students, who are considered across the country to prefer Obama, admitted that the editorial board “went through some difficulty” deciding which candidate to endorse (they eventually endorsed Obama).
This isn’t saying vote for McCain. His Vice President choice was poor, some of his policies are flawed, and he’s not perfect. Neither is Ralph Nader or any other candidate.
This unendorsement is simply saying that falling for the frenzy over Obama and believing unconditionally in an amorphous “change” is not something to base a serious election on.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
Ralph has never backed down from his principles.
That's the reality.
Exactly what I've been thinking. Good article.
Yes, never mind that McCain's call to pausing the campaign was a pathetic attempt to politicize the situation in order to favor his campaign. Especially since the Obama campaign contacted McCain's earlier that morning to try to find out something they could jointly do, and McCain simply ignored it and tried to play the gotcha card. Thankfully it seems that most people saw right through it. Good intentions... whatever. And we saw how much leadership skills he has... he couldn't even unite his party.
And I guess, by that logic, that Obama's move to "discontinue" his campaign to go be with his grandma was merely a political move, right?
Also, you missed the rest of the points. This wasn't an endorsement of McCain. This in an unendorsement of Obama, based on his actions.
Actually no. Considering his grandmother just died and she was in her final days I find it hard to categorize it as a political move. He did not pressure the other campaign to do anything, he didn't even make a big deal about it. McCain on the other hand made a sleaze ball move that would make Karl Rove proud.
Kansan Blog #6
Please Watch The Video First.
Intimidated?
Intimidated?
On August 21st the Kansan ran a story about the KUPD going "green" by buying three Segway scooters and an unspecified amount of E-85 patrol cars.
Where oh where do I begin?
First of all, as seen by the video above, riding a Segway is not exactly the most normal thing. Secondly, it is nowhere NEAR intimidating. Police are supposed to have a PRESENCE wherever they go, to deter thieves and all that jazz. They're SUPPOSED to be intimidating, to make you feel scared if you're up to no good, and safe and secure if you're just an average Joe (no debate jokes please).
Riding a Segway makes police officers a laughingstock on campus. I can't tell you how many times me or my friends have seen a Segway cop scoot past and we've had to restrain our laughter until he's whirred out of range.
Is this the image they're trying to get across? That they have $15,000 dollars to burn and have nothing better to spend on? What about normal bikes? What about just walking? What about finding something else to spend that outrageous amount of money on?
I want to know what the thought process behind this was. Rolling around campus at a maximum of 12.5 miles per hour is not exactly the thin blue line personified. Besides, all you have to do to get away from a Segway cop is...um...run. Up a hill.
Or find some stairs. Which, at KU is not exactly a hard thing to do.
On a much smaller campus, sans hills and stairs, I could see Segway cops being an option.
This, in my opinion, is indicative of a larger problem at KU.
KU has an unnatural obsession with "going green." Trays at Mrs. E's are gone, normal police cars and bikes (and legs; they don't run off fossil fuels) are gone, a random rain garden is being put in north of the Rec Center, and the list goes on.
By indulging this obsession, the KUPD has made fools of themselves, and has wasted money for the sake of looking greener than the next Big 12 school.
Knock it off, KU. You don't need to make uninformed rash decisions to try to make yourselves look better in the college rankings.
Once students actually get here, they won't care about diversity figures or how much money on gas the E-85 cars and Segways save. They will care about getting a quality education and being protected by a competent and well-trained police force.
I don't want Gob Bluth protecting my campus.
If you don't understand that, click here.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
It does seem like a waste of money and an attempt to appear like a better place rather than actually becoming a better place. I want to know what the officers think about this. They can't be too excited about riding these things. These things look funny thus it'll make anyone on it look funny. I can't wait to see it.
I have to say that I think segways are hilarious, in that ridiculous, could never ride on one seriously kind of way. If i had a segway, I would want all my friends to have one so that we could play segway tag. Imagine it...segway tag. Genius. They look like they should be in the circus, not available to the general public. I'm sure segways are already dong their part in contributing to American's obesity problem.
Kansan Blog #5
I must credit the inspiration for this blog post to John Allen of Christ Community Church.
Ah, bumper stickers. Sometimes they're funny, sometimes they're offensive, and sometimes you just don't get them at all.
But what do they mean this election season?
It's simple: they let the world know what your affiliation is. You wouldn't dare go out in public without letting everyone know exactly where you stand, right? You display that puppy proudly, leaving no room for possible stereotypes at all.
But come November, what do you do with quite permanent stickers that don't really apply at all?
Just in case the other guy is elected, you leave the sticker on your bumper.
If things go south and the president turns out to be a total !@#$^#%$#@, you have that sticker as a backup, saying that you're not responsible for what's happening in Washington.
And that's a problem.
We as Americans are so used to getting everything we as individuals want and not nearly as much used to caring about America as a singular unit. Sure the Constitution gives us the right to petition, the right to be nasty towards the government, but at what cost?
We're supposed to be the United States of America (emphasis added). If all we care about is getting our favorite in the White House or making sure everyone knows we didn't vote for the guy in there currently (you all do know that in April of 2009, everyone's gonna hate the president no matter who he is, right?), then where is the United? Are we just the States of America Who Occasionally Agree But Don't Really Like To Admit It?
The point of this election is not to have the United States of Obama vs. the United States of McCain. The point of this election is to elect as a country he who we think as a country will lead us the best. Yes, we'll disagree and vote for one or the other, but come November, a change should happen.
Don't leave your McCain sticker on if Obama gets elected.
Don't leave your Obama sticker on if McCain gets elected.
When the smoke clears in November, he will be OUR president. We need to stand behind him, recognize him as our choice as a country, and move forward.
We are a democracy for a reason. Let's keep the United in United States.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
pantheon
6 October 2008
at 11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
No. If one is elected over the other, I want you to look at percentages. That percent that voted for the loser? They voted for the loser. That's what they wanted. When the results are announced, you may feel a disturbance in the Force, as though many voices cried out and were suddenly silenced. That's American democracy. That's unity through faith, and strength through unity. If two people say something and you believe something else, shut up. If you're ready to shut up, that's fine. Some of us, though, are people. And you can pry our guns from our cold dead fingers.
fchambers
5 November 2008
at 9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
I understand that its important that we rally 'round the president -I wrote a similar article in 2004 after Bush beat Kerry. But that does not make it any easier to accept the decision that was made. I think people just need a few weeks to recover. Its like a breakup. It takes 6 months to get over someone you have been dating a year, and a day for every month after that you year were dating. Some of us have been "dating" our candidates since 2006.
csommerville
5 November 2008
at 11:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Holy crap no. This is an ELECTION. We haven't been "dating" candidates, and good grief, if we have, then there's some problems there. Time to recover? That's also known as being a poor sport and making sure that everyone knows you weren't responsible for the man elected.
This isn't a breakup, this isn't a relationship. Grow up, realize that you can't change (no pun intended) what happened last night, and get on with your life.
Kansan Blog #4
Please Watch The Video First.
You remember those guys at JibJab, right? They made what quite possibly gave rise to the genre of YouTube videos four years ago when they published "This Land," a video making fun of Bush and Kerry.
The operative word here is "both."
"It's Time for some Campaignin'" is so great because it does just that. It makes fun of both candidates while still getting across some of their main campaign ideals.
Alright, it does it with McCain in a tank and Obama on a rainbow unicorn, but the point still stands.
Why can't we just make fun of everybody?
"The Daily Show" routinely makes fun of politics, but leans a little far left. Bill O' Reilly makes of the politics, and leans a little far right. JibJab has stumbled across the goldmine of comedy:
Making fun of both sides!
If you truly want to be respected by both sides, you must be able to work both sides and appeal to everyone. I love watching the Daily Show, but sometimes it just makes my skin crawl.
I personally like Glenn Beck, although sometimes he blows things way out of proportion.
I have yet to see, besides JibJab, anyone able to make fun of both sides and not have a "bias."
On a side note, even though this video was indeed making fun of both sides, isn't it ironic, the portrayal of both candidates?
Obama is a fruity skipping guy who rides a unicorn over a rainbow and sings about nothing but change.
McCain is a wizened, hardened, tank-riding old guy.
But what does he sing about?
Stopping the jihad.
Hmm. Obama sings about ambiguous change, and McCain sings about actually doing something specific. Could all this tomfoolery possibly have a nugget of truth in it?
Just a side note.
If we can't have humor in this election, or even in our everyday life, then how can we even survive?
Humor is vital to our everyday lives. We must be able to find humor in everyday things, even something as mundane as the elections.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
cbeattie
1 October 2008
at 8:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
We're nearly a month away from the election, and I can honestly say I'm not positive who I'm voting for. If I don't know soon, I probably should refrain from even voting. The reason's simple: Both candidates make me laugh, usually a "this guy might be our President?" half-hearted chuckle. I doubt few honest people can say they believe in and support every policy of their favored candidate. It's not realistic. So I agree, Mr. Sommerville, instead of brutally bashing others' political opinions to hide their own ambiguity, everyone needs to relax. And have a good laugh.
pgriffith
2 October 2008
at 6:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Our campaign system is so ridiculous from how long it is to how it's covered. Every day or so you can find something worth mocking. Either a candidate will say something funny or some media outlet will cover a speech or development in some hilarious, over-the-top fashion. It may be serious business deciding the "leader of the free world," but it's more pertinent that we all have fun with it.
You remember those guys at JibJab, right? They made what quite possibly gave rise to the genre of YouTube videos four years ago when they published "This Land," a video making fun of Bush and Kerry.
The operative word here is "both."
"It's Time for some Campaignin'" is so great because it does just that. It makes fun of both candidates while still getting across some of their main campaign ideals.
Alright, it does it with McCain in a tank and Obama on a rainbow unicorn, but the point still stands.
Why can't we just make fun of everybody?
"The Daily Show" routinely makes fun of politics, but leans a little far left. Bill O' Reilly makes of the politics, and leans a little far right. JibJab has stumbled across the goldmine of comedy:
Making fun of both sides!
If you truly want to be respected by both sides, you must be able to work both sides and appeal to everyone. I love watching the Daily Show, but sometimes it just makes my skin crawl.
I personally like Glenn Beck, although sometimes he blows things way out of proportion.
I have yet to see, besides JibJab, anyone able to make fun of both sides and not have a "bias."
On a side note, even though this video was indeed making fun of both sides, isn't it ironic, the portrayal of both candidates?
Obama is a fruity skipping guy who rides a unicorn over a rainbow and sings about nothing but change.
McCain is a wizened, hardened, tank-riding old guy.
But what does he sing about?
Stopping the jihad.
Hmm. Obama sings about ambiguous change, and McCain sings about actually doing something specific. Could all this tomfoolery possibly have a nugget of truth in it?
Just a side note.
If we can't have humor in this election, or even in our everyday life, then how can we even survive?
Humor is vital to our everyday lives. We must be able to find humor in everyday things, even something as mundane as the elections.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
cbeattie
1 October 2008
at 8:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
We're nearly a month away from the election, and I can honestly say I'm not positive who I'm voting for. If I don't know soon, I probably should refrain from even voting. The reason's simple: Both candidates make me laugh, usually a "this guy might be our President?" half-hearted chuckle. I doubt few honest people can say they believe in and support every policy of their favored candidate. It's not realistic. So I agree, Mr. Sommerville, instead of brutally bashing others' political opinions to hide their own ambiguity, everyone needs to relax. And have a good laugh.
pgriffith
2 October 2008
at 6:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Our campaign system is so ridiculous from how long it is to how it's covered. Every day or so you can find something worth mocking. Either a candidate will say something funny or some media outlet will cover a speech or development in some hilarious, over-the-top fashion. It may be serious business deciding the "leader of the free world," but it's more pertinent that we all have fun with it.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Kansan Blog Entry #3
Please watch the video first.
After watching that video, what is your initial reaction?
Are you in agreement? Are you incensed?
Or here's a better question:
Have you even heard of this incident before now?
Here's the background for those of you who can't view the video above.
McCain was talking about constitutionalism regarding the (in)famous Roe v. Wade case passed down in 1973, and saying that he would appoint Justices to the Supreme Court that would interpret the Constitution "the way our founding fathers envision for them to do."
Sounds like a normal Republican response. Yay. But then Goldberg comes out of LEFT field with this question:
"Should I worry about being a slave, being returned to a slave?"
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you read that correctly. She asked if she should be worried about slavery returning to the United States.
Apparently she's never heard of the 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendments, ratified in 1865, 1868, and 1870 respectively, that guarantee African-Americans rights they did not have before those Amendments.
So apparently Goldberg thinks that the Amendments to the Constitution are really just suggestions, and don't really count as actual parts of the Constitution.
That is incredibly ignorant and insensitive. That question shows just how much ignorance regarding politics has sprung up in our country, and how little is being done to stop it. When I checked on this video at 5:30p.m., September 23rd, 2008, it had 42,595 views. That is an incredibly SMALL number compared to an interview Charlie Gibson had with Sarah Palin one day earlier, which now has 257,559 views.
What's going on here?
Goldberg asked what may be one of the stupidest and most offensive questions in this political season, and no one talked about it. I actually found out about it through conservative pundit Glenn Beck, who posted a transcript of his radio show here.
How is it that this went completely under the radar? Why are we letting people like Goldberg ask supposedly serious questions to the candidates? Why aren't people fighting BACK, and asking good questions, and telling ignoramuses like Goldberg to let us big boys do the talking?
This is a problem in our society today, and we need to start being INFORMED about our political decisions, and not just saying "poignant" and "scathing" questions to get a rise out of people.
And so, Ms. Goldberg, if you ever read this, please, PLEASE take a 10th grade civics class again before you try to get involved with politics.
After watching that video, what is your initial reaction?
Are you in agreement? Are you incensed?
Or here's a better question:
Have you even heard of this incident before now?
Here's the background for those of you who can't view the video above.
McCain was talking about constitutionalism regarding the (in)famous Roe v. Wade case passed down in 1973, and saying that he would appoint Justices to the Supreme Court that would interpret the Constitution "the way our founding fathers envision for them to do."
Sounds like a normal Republican response. Yay. But then Goldberg comes out of LEFT field with this question:
"Should I worry about being a slave, being returned to a slave?"
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you read that correctly. She asked if she should be worried about slavery returning to the United States.
Apparently she's never heard of the 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendments, ratified in 1865, 1868, and 1870 respectively, that guarantee African-Americans rights they did not have before those Amendments.
So apparently Goldberg thinks that the Amendments to the Constitution are really just suggestions, and don't really count as actual parts of the Constitution.
That is incredibly ignorant and insensitive. That question shows just how much ignorance regarding politics has sprung up in our country, and how little is being done to stop it. When I checked on this video at 5:30p.m., September 23rd, 2008, it had 42,595 views. That is an incredibly SMALL number compared to an interview Charlie Gibson had with Sarah Palin one day earlier, which now has 257,559 views.
What's going on here?
Goldberg asked what may be one of the stupidest and most offensive questions in this political season, and no one talked about it. I actually found out about it through conservative pundit Glenn Beck, who posted a transcript of his radio show here.
How is it that this went completely under the radar? Why are we letting people like Goldberg ask supposedly serious questions to the candidates? Why aren't people fighting BACK, and asking good questions, and telling ignoramuses like Goldberg to let us big boys do the talking?
This is a problem in our society today, and we need to start being INFORMED about our political decisions, and not just saying "poignant" and "scathing" questions to get a rise out of people.
And so, Ms. Goldberg, if you ever read this, please, PLEASE take a 10th grade civics class again before you try to get involved with politics.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
I'm amazed the situation came about to begin with. How can people boil a Supreme Court nomination down to one issue? These people have unrestrained power to overturn any law, and we're ignoring everything in favor of turning it into an abortion-only issue? Much as I hate to say it, McCain was absolutely, 100% right in saying that it can't be a one-issue deal. I've never heard truer words come out of his mouth.
Not that I'm surprised that Goldberg would say something like that. She thrives on saying stupid, offensive things, then acting like she's the cleverest person on earth for saying it. She talks about being a slave all the damn time, too, even though she oddly never mentions what she was doing during the Civil War...Oh, right, she's never been a slave. I wonder sometimes whether her ancestors are offended that she pretends that she went through the same things they did.
I was watching this show and a I have to disagree with you. He said he wanted people who interpeted the constitution the way the founding fathers meant it. At that time slavery was common place. It is a legitimate question that he never actually answered. He acknowledged that the question was asked, he even acknowledged her concern behind the question, but he never answered it. There are those ( and I am not accusing McCain of being one) who would love to see slavery reintroduced in this country and every person of color should probably be asking that question.
Sorry not a ignorant question from this side of the fence.
You made the same mistake that Goldberg did. The Amendments ARE the Constitution, and whatever they change becomes a part of the Constitution.
And show me one person who would "love to see slavary reintroduced in this country."
I highly doubt you'd find anyone.
noirbear, you'll notice that he tries to say something about four times after Whoopie does her thing, but she and Walters interrupt him. Also, most of the founding fathers at the Constitutional Convention were against slavery, and it was proposed that it be outlawed from the start. The Southern states threatened to secede, so they caved, but it's still written as an outstanding issue that needed to be dealt with, not a Constitutional institution.
Besides, to accuse somebody of that when you know full well that's not what he meant is just malicious. I'm not going to ask you if your "side of the fence" is for King George and the royalists, or for the Articles of Confederation, because I know that's not what you meant. It'd be the same kind of stupid question, for just the same rhetorical purpose: to make you look terrible by pretending I think you're saying something that I know you aren't.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Kansan Blog Entry #2
This was my Kansan.com blog entry from two weeks ago. Enjoy.
"The GOP is disgusting."
"If you vote for this guy [Obama] you are an uninformed political idiot and an intellectually lazy moron period."
These are just some of the statements flying around these days. The election, which is supposed to be the shining moment of American Democracy, has become a time for people to hate each other and become extremely polarized.
America is supposed to be a place of harmony and democracy and of people working together. With each election, it seems like people hate each other more and more.
In an article in the Washington Post from March of 2006, a study was done to test American's "vitriol" that "accompanies party politics."
"These data show that on balance, Democrats' and Republicans' evaluations of a president of the other party have steadily soured," authors Shanto Iyengar and Richard Morin said.
And that was two YEARS ago. Imagine if they did the same study today. The study was related to how people affiliated with either party ranked the incumbent president, and the study showed that people are moving more and more towards the extremes (i.e. "strongly approve" or "strongly disapprove").
It's time, to borrow a superbuzzword from this election, to have some change.
How about we DON'T yell at each other about how the other side is stupid?
How about we DON'T tell each other to "go back to school?"
How about we DON'T base our votes simply on who Oprah says is awesome?
How about we DO research the issues?
How about we DO have civil discussion with our opposites and see their point of view?
That is what is supposed to make America so great; this melting pot of ideas.
As I've heard recently, but I forget where, America is supposed to be a melting pot, but it's more like a pot with a whole lot of ingredients that hasn't melted yet.
Get a fire lit under our butts and let's actually work together to choose he who is best for our country.
I know who I'm voting for, but I'm not about to yell at the other side for not agreeing with me.
Chill Out, everyone.
"The GOP is disgusting."
"If you vote for this guy [Obama] you are an uninformed political idiot and an intellectually lazy moron period."
These are just some of the statements flying around these days. The election, which is supposed to be the shining moment of American Democracy, has become a time for people to hate each other and become extremely polarized.
America is supposed to be a place of harmony and democracy and of people working together. With each election, it seems like people hate each other more and more.
In an article in the Washington Post from March of 2006, a study was done to test American's "vitriol" that "accompanies party politics."
"These data show that on balance, Democrats' and Republicans' evaluations of a president of the other party have steadily soured," authors Shanto Iyengar and Richard Morin said.
And that was two YEARS ago. Imagine if they did the same study today. The study was related to how people affiliated with either party ranked the incumbent president, and the study showed that people are moving more and more towards the extremes (i.e. "strongly approve" or "strongly disapprove").
It's time, to borrow a superbuzzword from this election, to have some change.
How about we DON'T yell at each other about how the other side is stupid?
How about we DON'T tell each other to "go back to school?"
How about we DON'T base our votes simply on who Oprah says is awesome?
How about we DO research the issues?
How about we DO have civil discussion with our opposites and see their point of view?
That is what is supposed to make America so great; this melting pot of ideas.
As I've heard recently, but I forget where, America is supposed to be a melting pot, but it's more like a pot with a whole lot of ingredients that hasn't melted yet.
Get a fire lit under our butts and let's actually work together to choose he who is best for our country.
I know who I'm voting for, but I'm not about to yell at the other side for not agreeing with me.
Chill Out, everyone.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Oh.
I do have a blog. Totally forgot about that. Whoops.
Anyways....I'm now a senior at KU, still in journalism, and still on course to graduate (we'll find out for sure on Thursday).
I'm taking an opinion writing class now, and I have to a Kansan.com blog with it. I'll post the entries here as well, so everyone can read them twice.
Woo.
Here it goes:
"Welcome to the Reactor. I am a conservative in a liberal land, a Republican where Republicans fear to tread. In this blog I will present a conservative reaction to the events in our world.
Ahh, election season. That magical time of every four years when people hate other people for no apparent reason at all and the media tries to play the middle of the field.
Believe me, I'm the last person who would want to criticize the media. I am part of the media and I hate it when the media is accused of spinning everything and just out to screw with us. People with no experience in the field assume they know everything about how the news process works and attack it for being one-sided.
Usually I disagree with them.
Now that I'm watching the current election coverage, I begin to see what those angry people are talking about.
The news seems to be hailing one particular candidate as the savior of our country, able to magically fix all the wrongs in this world. The news seems to be tilted towards covering everything that candidate does and only a little of what the other one does.
When I did I normal Google search for McCain, 86,600,000 hits came up. When I did the same one for Obama, 161,000,000 hits came up. Maybe he's just more popular.
But when I did a Google News search, 351,174 for McCain and 380,343 for Obama came up.
30,000 hits is nothing, right?
On CNN.com, 15,700,000 popped up for McCain and 27,000,000 appeared for Obama.
Hmm. 11 million hit difference now.
This may seem like a simple fluke, but in reality, it is a sign of something more. The media is obviously leaning towards Obama as a favorite. The coverage of him and his campaign coverage is more prominent, and has been going on for far longer than the coverage of Republican hopefuls before McCain stepped up.
Every time you turn on the TV it's talking more and more about how awesome Obama is and how he's going to single-handedly save America. I was listening to the radio, and on a commercial for some Rock The Vote thing (a decidedly BIPARTISAN thing, mind you), they used a clip from an Obama speech. The clip? Something along the lines of this:
"And in November, the name George W. Bush will not be on the ballot!" *big cheer*
Don't even get me started on the ridiculousness of that statement. That's a whole other blog entry. The fact is, the media is all but ENDORSING Barack Obama. Sure newspapers do it all the time, but what happens if CNN, FOX, MSNBC, heck, even the BBC endorses a candidate?
In other words, the media's credibility is going severely downhill. If a network endorses a candidate, which I don't see as too far away at this point, then where will people get their balanced viewpoints? I realize they don't exist from any one source, but a conglomeration of unaffiliated sources provide the American people with the big picture. With the way the media is heading this election, what is the big picture?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who watches the Watchmen?"
And I did my job, which was mainly to get people to think about the issues. I don't care if they think I'm right, cuz this is Lawrence and I know they don't.
Here's the comments I received:
"
Anyways....I'm now a senior at KU, still in journalism, and still on course to graduate (we'll find out for sure on Thursday).
I'm taking an opinion writing class now, and I have to a Kansan.com blog with it. I'll post the entries here as well, so everyone can read them twice.
Woo.
Here it goes:
"Welcome to the Reactor. I am a conservative in a liberal land, a Republican where Republicans fear to tread. In this blog I will present a conservative reaction to the events in our world.
Ahh, election season. That magical time of every four years when people hate other people for no apparent reason at all and the media tries to play the middle of the field.
Believe me, I'm the last person who would want to criticize the media. I am part of the media and I hate it when the media is accused of spinning everything and just out to screw with us. People with no experience in the field assume they know everything about how the news process works and attack it for being one-sided.
Usually I disagree with them.
Now that I'm watching the current election coverage, I begin to see what those angry people are talking about.
The news seems to be hailing one particular candidate as the savior of our country, able to magically fix all the wrongs in this world. The news seems to be tilted towards covering everything that candidate does and only a little of what the other one does.
When I did I normal Google search for McCain, 86,600,000 hits came up. When I did the same one for Obama, 161,000,000 hits came up. Maybe he's just more popular.
But when I did a Google News search, 351,174 for McCain and 380,343 for Obama came up.
30,000 hits is nothing, right?
On CNN.com, 15,700,000 popped up for McCain and 27,000,000 appeared for Obama.
Hmm. 11 million hit difference now.
This may seem like a simple fluke, but in reality, it is a sign of something more. The media is obviously leaning towards Obama as a favorite. The coverage of him and his campaign coverage is more prominent, and has been going on for far longer than the coverage of Republican hopefuls before McCain stepped up.
Every time you turn on the TV it's talking more and more about how awesome Obama is and how he's going to single-handedly save America. I was listening to the radio, and on a commercial for some Rock The Vote thing (a decidedly BIPARTISAN thing, mind you), they used a clip from an Obama speech. The clip? Something along the lines of this:
"And in November, the name George W. Bush will not be on the ballot!" *big cheer*
Don't even get me started on the ridiculousness of that statement. That's a whole other blog entry. The fact is, the media is all but ENDORSING Barack Obama. Sure newspapers do it all the time, but what happens if CNN, FOX, MSNBC, heck, even the BBC endorses a candidate?
In other words, the media's credibility is going severely downhill. If a network endorses a candidate, which I don't see as too far away at this point, then where will people get their balanced viewpoints? I realize they don't exist from any one source, but a conglomeration of unaffiliated sources provide the American people with the big picture. With the way the media is heading this election, what is the big picture?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who watches the Watchmen?"
And I did my job, which was mainly to get people to think about the issues. I don't care if they think I'm right, cuz this is Lawrence and I know they don't.
Here's the comments I received:
"
¨Every time you turn on the TV it's talking more and more about how awesome Obama is and how he's going to single-handedly save America. How is it logical to say that every time you turn on the TV, someone is talking about how awesome Obama is? This is a weak assertion, unless you have watched all television programming since Barack announced his canidancy. Obviously, you imply that you have. Further, by cherry picking statistics from one source (CNN, google does not publish it´s own media) you seek to associate all media with a possible CNN bias, and then march out the old, trite liberal media bias argument. Arguing the media is purely liberally biased becomes silly the second you remember that Fox News was the number one rated cable news broadcaster in 2007. Setting up a false argument that all bias is liberal, you only distract from the fact that bias in general has reared it´s head in ugly, new ways in the 21st century. This is the issue that truly needs to be addressed. -Alex Dohety
Alrighty then.
FOXnews: 16,700 for Obama and 12,600 for McCain
MSNBC: 573,000 for Obama and 466,000 for McCain
CBS: 6,686 for Obama and 4,762 for McCain
ABC: 1,274 for Obama and 906 for McCain
NPR: 6,933 for Obama and 6,839 for McCain
NYTimes: 2,680,000 for Obama and 1,800,000 for McCain
Try it yourself.
FOXnews: 16,700 for Obama and 12,600 for McCain
MSNBC: 573,000 for Obama and 466,000 for McCain
CBS: 6,686 for Obama and 4,762 for McCain
ABC: 1,274 for Obama and 906 for McCain
NPR: 6,933 for Obama and 6,839 for McCain
NYTimes: 2,680,000 for Obama and 1,800,000 for McCain
Try it yourself.
But you're assuming that any hit is a "good" hit. How many of those hits link to NEGATIVE coverage? Just because News Site A has more Obama hits than McCain hits doesn't mean that all of those Obama hits are positive coverage. Personally I think the "liberal media" is a myth. This same media is fawning over Sarah Palin, letting her lie through her teeth with zero accountability, and is perfectly fine with the fact that she's hiding out from the press. People also tend to forget that corporations — you think they're "liberal"? — own the media outlets. Viacom, Time Warner, GE, Rupert Murdoch, Disney, etc. are the de facto owners of most major news outlets, including Fox, Time, Newsweek, ABC, CNN, CBS and NBC.
I'm betting that in a year news outlets will begin chiding themselves for their lopsided coverage of this election. (Not unlike they did for their lopsided coverage at the beginning of the war.) I'm a graduate of KU's J-school and follow several news outlets very closely. There is definitely more good coverage of Obama. McCain story headlines often have a negative word in them even if they story is positive. (Not much the writer can do about that.) You're right though, Palin is getting favorable coverage too. I don't think it is as much a grand conspiracy to elect Obama or glorify Palin rather that they are younger, appeal to more viewers/readers and are sexier news choices. But, that only explains the numbers not the content. I think many people blow the influence of the network out of proportion. A vast majority of journalists are completely free to write on whatever they want (I would be interested in seeing how papers are assigning the election beats though). The problem is that many of those journalists are pro-Obama. News papers have also taken more of an advocacy turn in the past few years. This could be a symptom of that as well. Bottom line: We are witnessing some very poor news coverage.
What about the fact that Obama was part of a much longer contest to win his candidacy? There was a time this year where the stories were about Clinton and Obama nonstop and McCain was almost forgotten for a while. I'm pretty sure that skews the results a bit. I wonder how many times Hillary shows up in the respective media archives.
I have 100 pennies, you have 50 nickels, therefore I'm a richer man than you. 100 is greater than 50. Same basic argument you're making. How many articles are pro, how many are neutral, and how many are negative for each candidate? Research that, because otherwise you're making sensational statements with the idea of correlation equals causation. Consider the elongated battle between Hillary and Obama (the only really serious candidates, even since day 1 everyone knew one of them would be the democrat of choice) versus the relatively short battle between multiple Republicans. Consider also the exact same claim was made in 1999 by Bush's supporters, yet a later study determined the percentage of positive media for Bush was substantially greater than the positive media for McCain. In conclusion, you're twisting the data.
I meant Gore, not McCain in my next to last sentance."
Fun fun fun.
But like I said, it's my job to stir the pot, so to speak, and to get people to sit up and take notice of the world around them.
Well, that's about it for now. I'll try to actually, you know, WRITE in this blog now.
Fun fun fun.
But like I said, it's my job to stir the pot, so to speak, and to get people to sit up and take notice of the world around them.
Well, that's about it for now. I'll try to actually, you know, WRITE in this blog now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I am not a fan of Kanye's attitude at all. I agree he can talk like an idiot. HOWEVER, how are you going to attack West for sampling? EVERYONE in music does it. I'm sure some of your favorite artists sir have done the same, heck they probably re-recorded a song and called it their own. Radiohead the voice of our generation? Yeah right...They aren't THAT POPULAR. Where on earth would you get that from? Coldplay, maybe. U2 was the generation before you, but you're one of those people who thinks their cool because they like older music which is stupid in intself. And you probably didn't know who Daft Punk was before Kanye's song.
I also don't like how you make things up. kanye didn't get arrested in a night club. He got arrested recently at his hotel after a pap harassed him. You're telling me you wouldn't freak out of a camera man continually invaded your space after you asked him to stop nicely. YOU WOULD.
And I am the biggest Jordan fan in the world. I lived in Chicago during the Bulls glory years. Jordan cussed at players, refs and all of that — but I still admire him. He's the greatest. And what are you talking about? There were plenty of players/people who didn't like Jordan. Talk to a Suns fan...they hate Jordan. Jazz fans? Just the same.
Ignorance is annoying. You wrote this because you hate rap music. Fine. But how about you criticize other genres of music for negative image? Whitney Houston was a coke head, you're not writing about that. Country singers have been arrested. Punk singers have been arrested, caught with drugs, etc. I'm starting to think you insult Kanye because of his skin color and I'd hate that to be the case.
Oh and here's a thought, why don't you insult P. Diddy if anyone for stealing music? every song he has is a sample. But you know what? Samples are better than what some of your favorite artists do - just redo a song and call it their own.
You're insulting this generation by calling Radiohead or U2 the voice of our generation. Face it, Hip-Hop is our voice. Some of the most well liked musicians by KU students are hip-hop artists, Jay-Z, Eminem, Kanye West. As far as voicing his opinion, he needs to learn how to shut up. However, he was right about the MTV awards two years ago - Kanye had THREE OF THE BIGGEST SONGS out at the time and Britney Spears who hadn't done crap at the time was given the first performance of the night. And she did terrible. Grammy? Kanye should have won best album for "Late Registration" just like Eminem should have won for "The Marshall Mathers LP." These were undeniable album but because they were rap, were not rewarded. Herby Handcock's album didn't deserve the win and I have that album. Ray Charles was the award because he recently passed away.