What blogger and University of Ottawa professor Carol Wainio is doing is completely right and valid and should be given the praise it deserves and then some. She not only exposed serial Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente of plagiarism but continually shows the blatant laziness and lack of integrity of the national newspaper she writes for. Despite Wente's inconsistencies and "slip-ups," she remains a vital part of the Globe and Mail editorial team. She doesn't get excused nor punished nor questioned by her editors at length. Why? Well, she actually was "punished" by editor John Stackhouse. However, nobody is sure what Wente's punishment entails and if it will actually teach her a lesson. If Wente was a starting journalist making these mistakes -- failing to attribute, stealing quotes, etc. -- she would be finished, as Jonah Lehrer himself discovered this past summer. Hey, even a veteran seasoned journalist with an abundant amount of respect like Fareed Zakaria can get docked for plagiarism. It doesn't matter that he's the Editor-at-Large at Time Magazine, or the author of The Post-American World, or the host of CNN's Global Public Square. He cheated so he gets punished.
Wente wrote a defensive column about Wainio's "allegations" today in the Globe. I must say, what she says boggles my mind and not just because I'm studying journalism. It mostly boggles my mind because, like a lot of people, I read the news. As consequence, it's completely egregious to read a journalist passively dismissing their mistakes as if it happens all the time: "It's just the way it is." Moreover, Wente references the content of her articles, that she gets unfairly targeted sometimes because people disagree with what she says. Yes, Wente is notorious for spouting unfavourable opinions but her content is besides the point. I can disagree with Wente -- and I often do -- but if she conducts her journalism with the highest standards, meaning upholding accuracy, then I can't say she's doing anything wrong, per se. According to Wente, anybody who calls her out on her plagiarism must hate her already because of her opinions. According to Wente, Wainio must've read too many of her infuriating columns and launched this personal vendetta against her. In her "apology," Wente comes off as hostile, defensive, and haughty instead of modest and remorseful.
Yes, mistakes are made in the papers. However, the onus is on the journalist and the editor to ensure it never happens again. It not only engenders a sense of distrust in the paper and in journalism as a whole, but it completely tarnishes the reputation of a writer and the paper he or she works for. This is obvious. This is fact. I don't see why The Globe and Mail is exempt from this rule.
If the Globe and Mail's decision to keep Wente on board is purely based on financial gain, then as far as I'm concerned the Globe is just as bad as the National Post.
It's pathetic that in Canada, we can't even have a national newspaper that we can trust 100% of the time, that is all encompassing of all viewpoints while at the same time having top-notch reporters covering each beat with enthusiasm, clarity, and accuracy. As I've stated before in the past, the only reliable and tolerable newspaper we have in Canada is The Toronto Star. Speaking of newspapers, I heard on The Current today that the mainstream media has not been taking a more active role in covering this story which is true. Only now has Wentegate stretched out of social media and into the media institutions within public life. If journalists really are the fourth estate, then they need to afflict the comfortable here, even if that includes their own colleagues. Media institutions -- like the Globe and Mail -- are still companies with a business motive and should therefore be scrutinized routinely so that people understand the truth. For a newspaper, understanding the truth about where you get your news is of vital importance.
But, newspapers are no longer becoming the only source of information. In fact, they're one of the last sources ordinary people consult when it comes to gathering data and opinions. According to Poynter Institute, more than half of Americans use the internet for news while readership in media has dropped significantly. The Wente case elegantly and effectively shows the problems of print media and why journalism should be striving to use more digital platforms for sharing the news. With digital media, it's much easier to hold writers accountable since online readership is larger therefore more people with different areas of expertise would be readily available to point out inconsistencies. By having a simple Google search at the fingertips, anyone can just copy and paste a questionable statement into the search engine and see if results pop up showing similar if not identical stories. In addition, it's much easier for the host website to make adjustments to the original story, not to mention less embarrassing since they don't have to run a Correction Notice in thousands upon thousands of newspapers.
The Globe and Mail used to be a centrist and sensible newspaper and, occasionally, they still have bursts of insight. Where else but the Globe and Mail could ordinary Canadians read about ending Canada's Mexican myopia? Where else could they have read the Globe's interview with Enrique Pena Nieto, the President-elect of Mexico? They could've gone online, or they could've read it in their favourite newspaper on the commute. The Globe and Mail has already started to rectify one particular issue: the Public Editor, which was recently created, now has to report to the publisher not the Editor-in-Chief, a change that will streamline this whole process and will avoid any further complications.
But, this is not enough.
The Globe and Mail needs to either 1) Work out a better arrangement with Wente if they're so keen on keeping her on. An arrangement could consist of lightening Wente's load so that she doesn't have to write 3 columns a week, if that's the underlining problem to her carelessless. Instead, she could do more investigative and feature work. Or 2) Fire Wente.
If she's fired, then the Globe wouldn't have to worry about this ever again. If she's fired, then Wente couldn't do more damage to her career since it would be effectively finished. If she's fired, then maybe The Globe and Mail would smarten up next time.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Thursday, September 20, 2012
The Real Mitt Romney Has Stood Up
Mother Jones really does offer smart, fearless journalism. Earlier this week, the liberal magazine unearthed a video of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney at a fundraiser dinner in May saying the following comments:
These are pretty damaging things for a political campaign, almost beyond repair. But, of course, for that to happen, the media needs to cover this story with enough fervor in order for the American public to grasp the magnitude of what exactly Romney is saying since he is, after all, writing off close to half of the US population.
This is going to be known as the week Romney lost the 2012 Presidential Election.
He's calling half of the American population free-loading moochers who want the government to do everything for them. Yes, these free-loading 47 percenters who don't pay income tax because their income is just too low or because they're elderly. These people who vote for Obama because they feel "entitled" to things like health, food, and housing. These people are wrong, Romney says, and he doesn't care about them. Why should he care about these poor people who don't take responsibility for their lives? This is only exacerbated by the fact that Romney said this among close, wealthy friends at a fundraiser dinner. The popular sentiment here is that Romney comes off as "a sneering plutocrat," clinking his wine glass as he hobnobs with the 1%.
Romney, not Obama, is the one being divisive by calling off and dismissing half of the American people.
In contrast, Obama has been the president of unity, in a way. His 2004 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention brilliantly stated that there is no black America, or white America, or Latino America, or Asian America, but the United States of America. He was the president of Yes We Can. Change We Can Believe In. In his presidency, Obama sought to bring both parties together in order to solve America's deepest problems, but to no avail. In fact, you have Republican House Leader Mitch McConnell saying that the number one concern for his party would be not to create jobs, not to repair the crippling economy, but to make sure Obama is finished. That notion, apart from being completely odious, is divisive and unpatriotic. In this sense, it is the Republicans who are dividing America by making a clear distinction between the President, who is out to destroy America -- literally destroy it since Romney/Ryan have focused on bringing America back, whatever that means -- and them, the saviours.
The popular Republican talking point is that Obama wants to start on war on those that are successful: class warfare. I think it was Deval Patrick who stated at this year's DNC that asking the wealthy to pay more in taxes isn't tax warfare, it's patriotism. It's the Democrats, it's Obama, who are actually saying We Built That -- together for everyone -- not the Republicans. If any party is engaging in class warfare, it's the GOP. Romney is demonizing those who receive entitlement programs, his running mate wants to end MediCare as we know it, and both of them are interested in shifting the tax burden onto the middle-class while the top 1% literally pay nothing. If this isn't war on the lower-class, then I don't know what is.
After these comments surfaced, the choice between the two candidates couldn't be more clear or more stark. On one hand, you have one candidate who wants to help everyone in America get a fair shot at success, whether that is starting and owning a small business or earning an education. You have a candidate who brought health-care to millions of Americans, 6.6 million young people alone. You have a candidate who made America a safehaven for 2.1 million undocumented young immigrants who wish to study in the United States. You have a candidate who made it easier for women to gain equal pay for equal work.
And then, you have a candidate who doesn't believe that Americans should be entitled to food.
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.But, it doesn't stop there. Romney goes on wishing that he had Mexican parents in order to secure the Latino vote. He talks about being born with a silver spoon in his mouth, something he claims could only be done in America. He calls Obama "corrupt" and "a disappointment." He brags about his consultants who have ties with Israel President Benjamin Netanyahu. He believes that Palestine is not equipped to bring peace to the table with their conflict with Israel. He claims that Iran will invoke a nuclear threat by unleashing a "dirty bomb," something that actually could be conceived without a strong nuclear program since it can be made from radioactive waste. He implies that President Barack Obama apologizes worldwide for the values America upholds as part of his foreign policy. He criticizes Obama for dividing the nation and proclaiming class warfare, when he himself just did by bringing up his 47% statistic.
These are pretty damaging things for a political campaign, almost beyond repair. But, of course, for that to happen, the media needs to cover this story with enough fervor in order for the American public to grasp the magnitude of what exactly Romney is saying since he is, after all, writing off close to half of the US population.
This is going to be known as the week Romney lost the 2012 Presidential Election.
He's calling half of the American population free-loading moochers who want the government to do everything for them. Yes, these free-loading 47 percenters who don't pay income tax because their income is just too low or because they're elderly. These people who vote for Obama because they feel "entitled" to things like health, food, and housing. These people are wrong, Romney says, and he doesn't care about them. Why should he care about these poor people who don't take responsibility for their lives? This is only exacerbated by the fact that Romney said this among close, wealthy friends at a fundraiser dinner. The popular sentiment here is that Romney comes off as "a sneering plutocrat," clinking his wine glass as he hobnobs with the 1%.
Romney, not Obama, is the one being divisive by calling off and dismissing half of the American people.
In contrast, Obama has been the president of unity, in a way. His 2004 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention brilliantly stated that there is no black America, or white America, or Latino America, or Asian America, but the United States of America. He was the president of Yes We Can. Change We Can Believe In. In his presidency, Obama sought to bring both parties together in order to solve America's deepest problems, but to no avail. In fact, you have Republican House Leader Mitch McConnell saying that the number one concern for his party would be not to create jobs, not to repair the crippling economy, but to make sure Obama is finished. That notion, apart from being completely odious, is divisive and unpatriotic. In this sense, it is the Republicans who are dividing America by making a clear distinction between the President, who is out to destroy America -- literally destroy it since Romney/Ryan have focused on bringing America back, whatever that means -- and them, the saviours.
The popular Republican talking point is that Obama wants to start on war on those that are successful: class warfare. I think it was Deval Patrick who stated at this year's DNC that asking the wealthy to pay more in taxes isn't tax warfare, it's patriotism. It's the Democrats, it's Obama, who are actually saying We Built That -- together for everyone -- not the Republicans. If any party is engaging in class warfare, it's the GOP. Romney is demonizing those who receive entitlement programs, his running mate wants to end MediCare as we know it, and both of them are interested in shifting the tax burden onto the middle-class while the top 1% literally pay nothing. If this isn't war on the lower-class, then I don't know what is.
After these comments surfaced, the choice between the two candidates couldn't be more clear or more stark. On one hand, you have one candidate who wants to help everyone in America get a fair shot at success, whether that is starting and owning a small business or earning an education. You have a candidate who brought health-care to millions of Americans, 6.6 million young people alone. You have a candidate who made America a safehaven for 2.1 million undocumented young immigrants who wish to study in the United States. You have a candidate who made it easier for women to gain equal pay for equal work.
And then, you have a candidate who doesn't believe that Americans should be entitled to food.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Teachers and Unions and Unions and Teachers
So, the Liberals defy the nay-sayers and go against the union who provided the bulk of their support for over a decade all in the hopes of keeping the Ontario economy afloat. Earlier last week, the Liberals passed Bill 115, legislation that would make it illegal for Ontario teachers to strike and collectively bargain. This, of course, is completely incredulous and resembles Conservative tactic in the Mike Harris days -- although, I concede that Harris was much, much worse. What Dalton McGuinty is doing is playing roughshod politics with a faction group he does not want to spar with. The Ontario teachers union has developed into a pretty powerful organization who has the crutch of citing the interests of the student whenever they're faced with some opposition. But, sometimes they do the exact opposite. Right now, the teachers abruptly halted any voluntary after-school activities they head as retaliation. Students, then, are the pawns in the middle of their feud. Interestingly enough, the students are the ones protesting and taking up the activist cause as exemplified by students at Sir Robert Borden in Ottawa. Now, as of Saturday, the teachers' unions have started to voice their concerns through public demonstrations.
As pro-union, I am firmly against the Liberals' move to nullify the teachers' ability to strike. This is, after all, their constitutional right. However, thanks to the Liberals, teachers' wages have increased exponentially due to his consistent support and Ontario teachers are revered across the nation for their livable and equitable benefits. Case in point, when BC teachers went on strike, they often cited Ontario teachers for the model they would like to have implemented in their own province. But, by openly criticizing the Liberals, the teachers' union are left with a precarious situation in which they could see the majority of their members heading straight for an alternative. An alternative in this case be the next party in line: the Tim Hudak Conservatives. This was something that happened before in Ontario, when NDP Leader Bob Rae was Premier and imposed a series of "Rae Days," or unpaid vacation days. This blogger does an excellent job of contextualizing the issue by comparing the austerity measures during Harris with austerity under McGuinty. The two do not compare, concludes the blogger, and that by turning their back on the Liberals, the teachers face an even greater risk: a Conservative government.
But, instead of actually reflecting on the travesty that was the Harris Common Sense Revolution, teachers are already decrying Bill 115 and McGuinty as "worse than Mike Harris." Hopefully, this one source doesn't speak on behalf of the teachers' union because this notion could not be more wrong.
Instead of puffing their chests and lashing out, the teachers should wake up from their political amnesia and grit and bear it for a while, lest they open the doors for a swift interception by Hudak. Teachers in Ontario get paid -- on average -- $86, 865, the second highest among teachers' unions in Canada, according to their 2011 Collective Agreement. Ontario teachers make almost $10,000 more than teachers in Saskatchewan and almost $20,000 more than their counterparts in P.E.I. Whether teachers deserve that money is whole other question. They've put in the hours in completing their education and obviously the effort to creating a lesson plan for their students. Although, it's true that there are some bad teachers out there who don't make the material engaging or interesting but aren't penalized because they're protected by the union. That's a problem, but a fair solution shouldn't be to demonize the entire union which conservatives are wont to do, but to adapt better evaluative procedures to weed out the ineffective teachers.
Anyways, teachers have consistently been making more and more money ever since McGuinty came into power in 2000, something that Anna Maria Tremonti pointed out to a representative of the teachers union as a cause of Ontario's deficit. The Liberals also implemented better benefits for the teachers to enjoy, most notably their pension plan which gives them a comfortable retirement after their teaching career. As the self-proclaimed "Education Premier," McGuinty has concentrated his efforts on securing higher performance rates for elementary and high-school students, which he has successfully accomplished, generally speaking. The point I'm trying to make is that the teachers comfortable lifestyle, better than most people in Ontario since we're suffering from a 7.8% unemployment rate.
Most people in Ontario can't empathize with the teachers' unions mostly due to their cozy relationship with the Liberals in all these years. They have a good pay, secured benefits, and a comfortable -- albeit not that generous -- pension. Irregardless, the pension is better than most working-class people in Ontario. When discussing the robbery of the right to strike, well, it seems like most people in Ontario face that same problem. Nurses can't strike and they're arguably faced with stressful working conditions. Ontario used to rely on manufacturing for their economy, but now, the majority of employment seems to be in retail or temporary work and most of those people can't strike. Moreover, it certainly doesn't help matters when you have an Ontario MP calling for the start of 'voluntary' unions.
As I've said before, in no way do I support the Liberals' disempowerment of the teachers' constitutional right to collective bargain. If the teachers are being mismanaged and handled unfairly while putting in the hours to educate and coach, then striking is the only reasonable action if negotiation breaks down. But, the fact is, the teachers aren't in that position in this province. As I've said, they make a good wage with equally good benefits with good vacation time. Of course, the job is never easy. But, what job is these days? Teachers have to deal with mountains of marking, individual needs of the students, and any voluntary positions they hold to make the year enjoyable. However, most teachers don't have to live paycheque to paycheque. Most teachers don't have to feel that they have to make a choice between rent or food. But I stress: this does not mean that their right to bargain should be suspended, even for a short period of time.
The Liberals -- at least the McGuinty liberals -- have duped themselves in betraying their key support group this time around. If they don't see public approval angling their way, they only have themselves to blame. The past by-election in Kitchener-Waterloo is emblematic enough of how weary people are of giving the Liberals a majority, especially when they're not even trying too hard. The winner, the NDP's Catherine Fife, single-handedly got to know her constituents and ran a great campaign. Since McGuinty permanently severed ties with the teachers, this means that the teachers can look to the NDP to be their party since the NDP are the party of unions. This means that -- potentially -- the NDP could land a victory and score a mandate in Ontario once again. And as for the Ontario PCs? Well, their only support is confined with the rural areas of Ontario.
McGuinty may have lost the teachers indefinitely but it's up to the teachers to realize who are and who aren't their allies.
As pro-union, I am firmly against the Liberals' move to nullify the teachers' ability to strike. This is, after all, their constitutional right. However, thanks to the Liberals, teachers' wages have increased exponentially due to his consistent support and Ontario teachers are revered across the nation for their livable and equitable benefits. Case in point, when BC teachers went on strike, they often cited Ontario teachers for the model they would like to have implemented in their own province. But, by openly criticizing the Liberals, the teachers' union are left with a precarious situation in which they could see the majority of their members heading straight for an alternative. An alternative in this case be the next party in line: the Tim Hudak Conservatives. This was something that happened before in Ontario, when NDP Leader Bob Rae was Premier and imposed a series of "Rae Days," or unpaid vacation days. This blogger does an excellent job of contextualizing the issue by comparing the austerity measures during Harris with austerity under McGuinty. The two do not compare, concludes the blogger, and that by turning their back on the Liberals, the teachers face an even greater risk: a Conservative government.
But, instead of actually reflecting on the travesty that was the Harris Common Sense Revolution, teachers are already decrying Bill 115 and McGuinty as "worse than Mike Harris." Hopefully, this one source doesn't speak on behalf of the teachers' union because this notion could not be more wrong.
Instead of puffing their chests and lashing out, the teachers should wake up from their political amnesia and grit and bear it for a while, lest they open the doors for a swift interception by Hudak. Teachers in Ontario get paid -- on average -- $86, 865, the second highest among teachers' unions in Canada, according to their 2011 Collective Agreement. Ontario teachers make almost $10,000 more than teachers in Saskatchewan and almost $20,000 more than their counterparts in P.E.I. Whether teachers deserve that money is whole other question. They've put in the hours in completing their education and obviously the effort to creating a lesson plan for their students. Although, it's true that there are some bad teachers out there who don't make the material engaging or interesting but aren't penalized because they're protected by the union. That's a problem, but a fair solution shouldn't be to demonize the entire union which conservatives are wont to do, but to adapt better evaluative procedures to weed out the ineffective teachers.
Anyways, teachers have consistently been making more and more money ever since McGuinty came into power in 2000, something that Anna Maria Tremonti pointed out to a representative of the teachers union as a cause of Ontario's deficit. The Liberals also implemented better benefits for the teachers to enjoy, most notably their pension plan which gives them a comfortable retirement after their teaching career. As the self-proclaimed "Education Premier," McGuinty has concentrated his efforts on securing higher performance rates for elementary and high-school students, which he has successfully accomplished, generally speaking. The point I'm trying to make is that the teachers comfortable lifestyle, better than most people in Ontario since we're suffering from a 7.8% unemployment rate.
Most people in Ontario can't empathize with the teachers' unions mostly due to their cozy relationship with the Liberals in all these years. They have a good pay, secured benefits, and a comfortable -- albeit not that generous -- pension. Irregardless, the pension is better than most working-class people in Ontario. When discussing the robbery of the right to strike, well, it seems like most people in Ontario face that same problem. Nurses can't strike and they're arguably faced with stressful working conditions. Ontario used to rely on manufacturing for their economy, but now, the majority of employment seems to be in retail or temporary work and most of those people can't strike. Moreover, it certainly doesn't help matters when you have an Ontario MP calling for the start of 'voluntary' unions.
As I've said before, in no way do I support the Liberals' disempowerment of the teachers' constitutional right to collective bargain. If the teachers are being mismanaged and handled unfairly while putting in the hours to educate and coach, then striking is the only reasonable action if negotiation breaks down. But, the fact is, the teachers aren't in that position in this province. As I've said, they make a good wage with equally good benefits with good vacation time. Of course, the job is never easy. But, what job is these days? Teachers have to deal with mountains of marking, individual needs of the students, and any voluntary positions they hold to make the year enjoyable. However, most teachers don't have to live paycheque to paycheque. Most teachers don't have to feel that they have to make a choice between rent or food. But I stress: this does not mean that their right to bargain should be suspended, even for a short period of time.
The Liberals -- at least the McGuinty liberals -- have duped themselves in betraying their key support group this time around. If they don't see public approval angling their way, they only have themselves to blame. The past by-election in Kitchener-Waterloo is emblematic enough of how weary people are of giving the Liberals a majority, especially when they're not even trying too hard. The winner, the NDP's Catherine Fife, single-handedly got to know her constituents and ran a great campaign. Since McGuinty permanently severed ties with the teachers, this means that the teachers can look to the NDP to be their party since the NDP are the party of unions. This means that -- potentially -- the NDP could land a victory and score a mandate in Ontario once again. And as for the Ontario PCs? Well, their only support is confined with the rural areas of Ontario.
McGuinty may have lost the teachers indefinitely but it's up to the teachers to realize who are and who aren't their allies.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Feminist-In-Chief: Obama, Empowering Women, and the DNC
To be blunt, the Democrats put on a successful convention, one better than the Republicans on most regards. Note when I say "most" because, to be fair, speeches given at the Republican convention were actually pretty good. As I pointed out in my post about the RNC, Ann Romney gave a truly moving speech about her husband and likewise Chris Christie gave a fiery address that prompted presidential buzz. But, speeches at the RNC were marred with inconsistencies and blatant lies. Speeches at the Democratic National Convention were not, at least not at the level the RNC was. In fact, not only were the speeches brilliant and rousing, but they were also substantive and focused on the main goal: convincing the American public that President Barack Obama deserves a second term.
The Jobs Report which was released Friday is, I think, the most fitting conclusion of the Democratic National Convention. The report shows exactly how much progress the Obama Administration made and will surely resonate more with Americans than a speech or tribute video. In August, the US economy added 96,000 jobs meaning that August is the 30th month of consecutive job growth. That's not bad considering the Republicans won't collaborate with Obama under any circumstances. That's not bad considering that the GOP shot down the Jobs Act last year which was estimated to create over 2 million jobs. However, 96,000 jobs are not enough to make a significant dent on the unemployment rate. That would take approximately 250,000 jobs to do that. But, the jobs report does prove that the Obama Administration does not hate the private sector since, according to Think Progress, 103,000 jobs were created. It also shows that Obama still has a long way to go to convince the American people that the economy will revive itself. The Jobs Report is not abysmal since it actually is an improvement from the US economy exactly 4 years ago, when it collapsed dramatically due to the stock market crash and the Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy. If anything, the Jobs Report is sobering to the Obama campaign and the Democrats amid the post-convention frenzy.
However, even after the tepid August Jobs Report, the Democratic National Convention may have been the factor that catapults Obama to victory.
However, even after the tepid August Jobs Report, the Democratic National Convention may have been the factor that catapults Obama to victory.
This is why.
The Convention did a great job of emphasizing the highlights of Obama's mandate and did an even better job of dispelling common myths propagated last week at the RNC. A number of speakers directly quoted speeches made in the week before in Tampa and then told the audience the truth. The truth being that the GM plant Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan was talking about actually closed in 2008 under Bush. The truth being that the Affordable Care Act cuts money away from corporations to cut fraud in the health care system, not remove solvency from MediCare as much as the Republicans like to tout. The truth being that Obama has created more private sector jobs than the GOP would like to admit. The truth being that Obama cannot solely be blamed for the economic calamity that is occurring in America but the work he has done as rectification has been impressive. The truth being that it doesn't take just 4 years to get America back on track, something that Obama himself said in his 2009 inauguration speech.
What the convention did most of all was to undergird the campaign with more optimism. The attacks on Ryan and Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney were present, of course. They have to be. But, the overall direction of the campaign was more focused on supporting the President and Vice President opposed to attacking the other side. Unlike his opponent, Obama refrained from criticizing Romney by name. A wise move as most people have chided the Obama campaign time and time again for being largely negative.
But, of course, no political convention could be complete if there wasn't some speculation about potential presidential candidates for 2016. For the Democrats, they have a sizable playing field: San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick are some of the most prominent and qualified. However, instead of giving narcissistic speeches for the campaign in coming years, they gave gracious speeches that were autobiographical in tone but supportive for Obama in heart. Unlike Christie, the keynoter for the RNC, whose speech rife with 2016 hints.
Although, that doesn't mean that the Democratic National Convention wasn't tact since it reaped the benefits from the oversights made in the RNC. For instance, the DNC are now unequivocally the party of gay rights. According to the Democrats, it's not about sexual orientation anymore. It's about "who you love," thereby spreading a much more positive issue that would render the topic of same-sex marriage as hard to refute. The Democrats seized and pounced on the opportunity to mention veterans and the troops fighting in Afghanistan, something that the Republicans didn't do at all. A military mom, Jill Biden gave a pleasant speech about her son in combat. Michelle Obama, whose speech was phenomenal, was introduced by a military mom as tribute to Obama and Biden's work for military families. Tammy Duckworth is now a Democratic Senatorial candidate who is placing military and veteran issues on the table.
And then there's women's issues. The Democratic National Convention hit a grand slam when it comes to reproductive rights, equal pay for equal work, and women's health. I mean, the amount of support and praise speakers gave to women was beyond encouraging. There were definitely more women speakers at the Democratic National Convention than at the Republican counterpart. The speeches given by women at the DNC either commented on the Democrats' position on abortion, same-sex marriage, equal pay for equal work, and healthcare. Female members of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives took centre stage at the convention to discuss issues of importance to them and to women everywhere. Reproductive rights advocates like Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood and Sandra Fluke were riveting in their defense of contraception and pregnancy options. Of course, the Democrats have always relied on women voters for the bulk of their support. But in these times, where the Republicans are toying with the idea of removing women from the front lines in military combat, the Democrats are owning the idea that they are the party for women.
This idea couldn't be more apparent that in the president's own speech.
First, I have to say that Obama's speech was good but not great. Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker said that it was very vague and specious on future commitments which is a valid point. Lots of people have criticized Obama for making a weak plea to the American people for more time to restore the economy. I don't necessarily think his speech was "weak" since it's what incumbent presidents all say in their speeches, albeit not explicitly. They make the case for themselves that they're just not finished yet. Granted, Obama's speech was not as good as former President Bill Clinton's speech. Clinton probably stole the show. His no-nonsense, folksy approach was actually more substantive than any other speech at either conventions. It only took one word from Clinton to get the Democrats energized, mobilized, and ready to defend their positions against those of the Republicans: "arithmetic." Was Obama overshadowed by Clinton? It's hard to say. What we can say is that Obama needs Clinton more than any other person if Obama wants to win this election. Clinton is the perfect combination of "scholar" and "working Joe." Not only is he likable, he is revered as one of the best presidents in history. But still, Obama gave a brilliant oration. One of the greatest things in Obama's address has to be his unyielding and unrelenting support of women's rights.
Barack Obama is the Feminist-in-Chief.
As the son of a single mother, raised by his grandmother, and the father of two daughters, women's rights is an issue Obama truly and genuinely cares about. The very first thing he did as president was sign the Lilly Ledbetter Act granting women more accessibility to filing discriminatory workplace grievances, sending a message of equal pay for equal work. He appointed two women to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Affordable Care Act ensures that insurance companies can't deny care for the pre-existing condition of being a woman. Obamacare does so much for women's health by providing women with mammograms, contraceptive options and counselling, and support for domestic abuse victims, among other great things. Not only is the coverage more encompassing of the issues that affect women, Obamacare also gives women complete control of their insurance compared to the co-insurance that was previously held between a woman and her employer. He passed the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit which benefited millions of women going through the recession. Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls which helps protect women from unjust procedures in all matters of public policy. He has expanded funding of the Violence Against Women Act, an act created by his Vice President Joe Biden. Obama delivered the commencement speech at New York-based Barnard College and said the following things to the 2012 graduates:
And it seems like only one candidate in the race knows that.
And then there's women's issues. The Democratic National Convention hit a grand slam when it comes to reproductive rights, equal pay for equal work, and women's health. I mean, the amount of support and praise speakers gave to women was beyond encouraging. There were definitely more women speakers at the Democratic National Convention than at the Republican counterpart. The speeches given by women at the DNC either commented on the Democrats' position on abortion, same-sex marriage, equal pay for equal work, and healthcare. Female members of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives took centre stage at the convention to discuss issues of importance to them and to women everywhere. Reproductive rights advocates like Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood and Sandra Fluke were riveting in their defense of contraception and pregnancy options. Of course, the Democrats have always relied on women voters for the bulk of their support. But in these times, where the Republicans are toying with the idea of removing women from the front lines in military combat, the Democrats are owning the idea that they are the party for women.
This idea couldn't be more apparent that in the president's own speech.
First, I have to say that Obama's speech was good but not great. Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker said that it was very vague and specious on future commitments which is a valid point. Lots of people have criticized Obama for making a weak plea to the American people for more time to restore the economy. I don't necessarily think his speech was "weak" since it's what incumbent presidents all say in their speeches, albeit not explicitly. They make the case for themselves that they're just not finished yet. Granted, Obama's speech was not as good as former President Bill Clinton's speech. Clinton probably stole the show. His no-nonsense, folksy approach was actually more substantive than any other speech at either conventions. It only took one word from Clinton to get the Democrats energized, mobilized, and ready to defend their positions against those of the Republicans: "arithmetic." Was Obama overshadowed by Clinton? It's hard to say. What we can say is that Obama needs Clinton more than any other person if Obama wants to win this election. Clinton is the perfect combination of "scholar" and "working Joe." Not only is he likable, he is revered as one of the best presidents in history. But still, Obama gave a brilliant oration. One of the greatest things in Obama's address has to be his unyielding and unrelenting support of women's rights.
Barack Obama is the Feminist-in-Chief.
As the son of a single mother, raised by his grandmother, and the father of two daughters, women's rights is an issue Obama truly and genuinely cares about. The very first thing he did as president was sign the Lilly Ledbetter Act granting women more accessibility to filing discriminatory workplace grievances, sending a message of equal pay for equal work. He appointed two women to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Affordable Care Act ensures that insurance companies can't deny care for the pre-existing condition of being a woman. Obamacare does so much for women's health by providing women with mammograms, contraceptive options and counselling, and support for domestic abuse victims, among other great things. Not only is the coverage more encompassing of the issues that affect women, Obamacare also gives women complete control of their insurance compared to the co-insurance that was previously held between a woman and her employer. He passed the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit which benefited millions of women going through the recession. Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls which helps protect women from unjust procedures in all matters of public policy. He has expanded funding of the Violence Against Women Act, an act created by his Vice President Joe Biden. Obama delivered the commencement speech at New York-based Barnard College and said the following things to the 2012 graduates:
Indeed, we know we are better off when women are treated fairly and equally in every aspect of American life — whether it’s the salary you earn or the health decisions you make.
After decades of slow, steady, extraordinary progress, you are now poised to make this the century where women shape not only their own destiny but the destiny of this nation and of this world.
My first piece of advice is this: Don’t just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table.
No woman’s signature graced the original document — although we can assume that there were founding mothers whispering smarter things in the ears of the founding fathers.
So think about what that means to a young Latina girl when she sees a Cabinet secretary that looks like her. (Applause.) Think about what it means to a young girl in Iowa when she sees a presidential candidate who looks like her. Think about what it means to a young girl walking in Harlem right down the street when she sees a U.N. ambassador who looks like her. Do not underestimate the power of your example.Those are just some of the things Obama said in his speech at Barnard. Now, for his speech at last week's Democratic Convention:
We believe the little girl who’s offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or a grant for college could become the next Steve Jobs, or the scientist who cures cancer, or the President of the United States, and it’s in our power to give her that chance.
If you give up on the idea that your voice can make a difference, then other voices will fill the void ... [like] Washington politicians who want to decide who you can marry, or control health care choices that women should be making for themselves.
The young woman I met at a science fair who won national recognition for her biology research while living with her family at a homeless shelter, she gives me hope.Romney didn't have anything like this in his speech nor did any other speaker talk so candidly about advancing the rights of women. But, as Republicans are quick to point out, issues like women's rights "don't matter" since they're not as "important" as the economy. Well, the Republicans are not in the position to comment on the economy since they are, in fact, the party responsible for the calamity. Moreover, to dismiss women's issues is to dismiss issues that directly affect half of the US population. To say that prosperity only depends on finances is completely myopic and negligent. No longer do we live in a time where women's issues are contained in a box only to be opened when the debate is heated. Now, we live in a time where women's issues are everyone's issues.
And it seems like only one candidate in the race knows that.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
The Globe and Fail: John Ibbitson on Mitt Romney for Canada
This past Wednesday, during the Republican National Convention, the Globe and Mail featured an interesting article written by one of their regular columnists John Ibbitson. The article was essentially making the case on why Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney would be a good president for Canadian interests. The wonderful blogger SixthEstate brought this article to my attention and used it to further dispel the myth of Liberal media in Canada. The Globe and Mail, to be frank, is not liberal. While it's true they have occasional bursts of insight, they mostly write incredulous articles like this one or this one.
Anyways, the piece starts off with an encouraging statistic, one that would give Ibbitson a difficult time convincing Canadians that Romney should win the top job: 66% of Canadians would vote for President Barack Obama compared to the 9% who would vote for Romney. Now, Ibbitson says that you, the 66%, should reconsider your position, a position that would prove to be inconsequential to the election since it's not the approval of Canadians that matters here. But, reconsider regardless!
Ibbitson then goes on to say that Romney would "know Canada more than any other president in history," even though there is speculation that Chester A. Arthur was born in Canada after his parents emigrated from Ireland to Quebec; even though Franklin D. Roosevelt had a home in Canada and traveled to Canada more than any other president due to relations during wartime. But, Romney spent his youth vacationing there and lived in Detroit therefore he must've gone to Windsor since the two cities are so close. This is a new trend I'm noticing among Republicans: that traveling somehow counts as foreign policy experience. On Meet the Press, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty said that because Romney was involved in business transactions overseas and was once a Mormon missionary, he has enough foreign policy experience to be president. Traveling to a country obviously doesn't make you an expert on their political culture and style of governance. And yet, Republicans and the Globe and Mail it seems are quick to suggest otherwise since travelling gives you a "sense" of what that country is like. But, if people are going to run for president and claim that they will get America back on the world stage, then it would be useful for them to acquire more than just a "sense" of the rest of the world. Of course, this idea is more than just beyond noxious, it's also glowing proof of the misguided, myopic lens that Republicans and Republican-sympathizers like Ibbitson use to see the rest of the world.
In contrast, Ibbitson says, President Barack Obama has only visited the country a few times prior to being Commander-in-Chief and thought that the country is cold. While it is true that Obama has only visited Canada once as President and vetoed against the Keystone XL pipeline which would create dozens of jobs, to say that Obama doesn't "know" Canada is a little absurd.* Relations between the two countries are not at an all-time low, despite what two professors at Carleton argue. In fact, the two countries are increasingly growing similar, mostly due to the Conservative government we have in Canada.
The article progresses to briefly discuss the plans both candidates have for the economy, which is Romney's strength according to poll results. Unlike Obama, Ibbitson says, Romney actually has a plan even though it's "stupid." So, according to Ibbitson, a plan that is fiscally irresponsible is much better than what Obama has been doing, working without a budget. Well, that's not exactly true, Ibbitson. Obama has proposed a budget in the not-too-distant past, May 2012, which fell to humiliating defeats in both the House of Representatives (414-0) and the Senate (99-0). Obama's budget for the 2013 fiscal year was regarded as a fair, balanced, and responsible proposal, one that would help the middle class to drive the economy. There was a substantial amount of investment in education and clean energy while maintaining MediCare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Not to mention, Obama even tried to reach for compromise with the Republicans by tabling spending cuts and by preserving defense spending. These were things that are not mentioned in Ibbitson's article even though a healthy, robust American economy thought to be generated by this budget would likewise benefit Canada.
Ibbitson concludes by taking the opposite position, listing all the ways in which Romney would fail to deliver Canadian interests as President of the United States. His major flaw is that he's a Republican which means he believes in tax cuts for the rich, opposing gay rights, threatening military action in Iran, no abortions under any circumstance, and agreeing with Rush Limbaugh. Canadians take the exact opposite stance as Romney. We believe in higher taxes for the wealthy, equality for gays and lesbians, the women's right to choose, and a steadfast refusal to broadcast his show in Canada or for Canadian bands to have their music featured on his program. On Iran, we take the United States' approach to push for more sanctions, but Iran still views Canada more favourably than the US or UK.
After weighing the two sides, Ibbitson then refutes his initial position on Romney and said that there isn't a case for him after all! While this is the best sentence in the article, it renders the editorial pointless and Ibbitson sheepish for failing to take a proper stance. Is Ibbitson here trying to engender debate among Canadians on Romney by elucidating on his past and connections to Canada? Like I said, that debate is inconsequential to the actual result of the election. However, that doesn't mean it's not important for Canada to consider the policies of both candidates. We definitely should since we have economic, diplomatic, and military ties to the United States. And, it doesn't mean that Canadian Media should not cover the US election since it technically has nothing to do with us. The amount of coverage in the national newspapers has been adequate, with the Globe and Mail's "Canadians living in the US" feature and the regular dispatches in the National Post from star columnist Andrew Coyne.
Canadians need to consider the ramifications of both outcomes, either a second-term for Obama or a first mandate for Romney. But, it's best if they do it without the help of Ibbitson's article.
*Besides, Obama is believed to reconsider his original position anyways.
Anyways, the piece starts off with an encouraging statistic, one that would give Ibbitson a difficult time convincing Canadians that Romney should win the top job: 66% of Canadians would vote for President Barack Obama compared to the 9% who would vote for Romney. Now, Ibbitson says that you, the 66%, should reconsider your position, a position that would prove to be inconsequential to the election since it's not the approval of Canadians that matters here. But, reconsider regardless!
Ibbitson then goes on to say that Romney would "know Canada more than any other president in history," even though there is speculation that Chester A. Arthur was born in Canada after his parents emigrated from Ireland to Quebec; even though Franklin D. Roosevelt had a home in Canada and traveled to Canada more than any other president due to relations during wartime. But, Romney spent his youth vacationing there and lived in Detroit therefore he must've gone to Windsor since the two cities are so close. This is a new trend I'm noticing among Republicans: that traveling somehow counts as foreign policy experience. On Meet the Press, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty said that because Romney was involved in business transactions overseas and was once a Mormon missionary, he has enough foreign policy experience to be president. Traveling to a country obviously doesn't make you an expert on their political culture and style of governance. And yet, Republicans and the Globe and Mail it seems are quick to suggest otherwise since travelling gives you a "sense" of what that country is like. But, if people are going to run for president and claim that they will get America back on the world stage, then it would be useful for them to acquire more than just a "sense" of the rest of the world. Of course, this idea is more than just beyond noxious, it's also glowing proof of the misguided, myopic lens that Republicans and Republican-sympathizers like Ibbitson use to see the rest of the world.
In contrast, Ibbitson says, President Barack Obama has only visited the country a few times prior to being Commander-in-Chief and thought that the country is cold. While it is true that Obama has only visited Canada once as President and vetoed against the Keystone XL pipeline which would create dozens of jobs, to say that Obama doesn't "know" Canada is a little absurd.* Relations between the two countries are not at an all-time low, despite what two professors at Carleton argue. In fact, the two countries are increasingly growing similar, mostly due to the Conservative government we have in Canada.
The article progresses to briefly discuss the plans both candidates have for the economy, which is Romney's strength according to poll results. Unlike Obama, Ibbitson says, Romney actually has a plan even though it's "stupid." So, according to Ibbitson, a plan that is fiscally irresponsible is much better than what Obama has been doing, working without a budget. Well, that's not exactly true, Ibbitson. Obama has proposed a budget in the not-too-distant past, May 2012, which fell to humiliating defeats in both the House of Representatives (414-0) and the Senate (99-0). Obama's budget for the 2013 fiscal year was regarded as a fair, balanced, and responsible proposal, one that would help the middle class to drive the economy. There was a substantial amount of investment in education and clean energy while maintaining MediCare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Not to mention, Obama even tried to reach for compromise with the Republicans by tabling spending cuts and by preserving defense spending. These were things that are not mentioned in Ibbitson's article even though a healthy, robust American economy thought to be generated by this budget would likewise benefit Canada.
Ibbitson concludes by taking the opposite position, listing all the ways in which Romney would fail to deliver Canadian interests as President of the United States. His major flaw is that he's a Republican which means he believes in tax cuts for the rich, opposing gay rights, threatening military action in Iran, no abortions under any circumstance, and agreeing with Rush Limbaugh. Canadians take the exact opposite stance as Romney. We believe in higher taxes for the wealthy, equality for gays and lesbians, the women's right to choose, and a steadfast refusal to broadcast his show in Canada or for Canadian bands to have their music featured on his program. On Iran, we take the United States' approach to push for more sanctions, but Iran still views Canada more favourably than the US or UK.
After weighing the two sides, Ibbitson then refutes his initial position on Romney and said that there isn't a case for him after all! While this is the best sentence in the article, it renders the editorial pointless and Ibbitson sheepish for failing to take a proper stance. Is Ibbitson here trying to engender debate among Canadians on Romney by elucidating on his past and connections to Canada? Like I said, that debate is inconsequential to the actual result of the election. However, that doesn't mean it's not important for Canada to consider the policies of both candidates. We definitely should since we have economic, diplomatic, and military ties to the United States. And, it doesn't mean that Canadian Media should not cover the US election since it technically has nothing to do with us. The amount of coverage in the national newspapers has been adequate, with the Globe and Mail's "Canadians living in the US" feature and the regular dispatches in the National Post from star columnist Andrew Coyne.
Canadians need to consider the ramifications of both outcomes, either a second-term for Obama or a first mandate for Romney. But, it's best if they do it without the help of Ibbitson's article.
*Besides, Obama is believed to reconsider his original position anyways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)