Obama Revelations

Obama Revelation #1: Where did the money really come from Obama?

Image: nymag.com

Obama claimed that the funding from his campaign came from grassroots organizations, and not from large corporations. In Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics, Paul street cites in a speech given in Greenville, South Carolina, "Washington lobbyists haven't funded my campaign, they won't run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president."

Obama also wrote supporters through e-mail, "Candidates typically spend a week like this-right before the critical June 30 financial reporting deadline-on the phone, day and night, begging Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs to write huge checks. Not me. Our campaign has rejected the money-for-influence game and refused to accept funds from registered federal lobbyists and political action committees (Street, 13)."

In reality according it was just the opposite according to opensecrets.org, Obama only recieved 32% of his funding from small donors. His top contributors included investment bankers Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, and JP Morgan Chase; utility and nuclear giant Exelon; media giants Time Warner and Google, and the multinational, corporate globalist law firms Skadden, Arps et al, Sidley Austin LLP, and Latham & Watkins (Street 21).

Image courtesy of Google Images

# 2: The Obama Brand

Image courtesy of flickr

Obama paid a pretty penny to build up his marketing strategy. Paul Street points out that according to the Federal Election Commission, by 2008, Obama had spent $52 million on, "media, strategy consultants, image-building, marketing research, and telemarketing (Street, 61)." The money went into the hands of firms like GMMB, and the Parker Group, who are both big-client, corporate-marketing firms. These groups built the "Obama Brand," and were in charge of making Obama look as appealing as possible to the American people.

We learned how important looks can be in an election from the televised Kennedy, Nixon debate in 1960. David Croteau and William Hoyness discussed this topic in their Those who watched the debate on television gave Kennedy a slight edge, and those who listened on the radio gave it to Nixon. "Nixon declined to wear the heavy makeup that aides recommended. On camera, he appeared haggard and in need of a shave, while Kennedy's youthful and vibrant appearance was supported by the layer of television makeup he wore (233, Croteau, Hoynes)." This debate was significant because it proved that in politics, looks matter. And during the campaign, who looked better on television? The charismatic Obama, or the weathered McCain?

Picture from Google Images

#3: Obama-The Ultimate Showman

Image: Wikipedia

In Amusing Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman, he argues that the sole purpose of television is purely for entertainment. Television news exists only to amuse us, and not to truly inform. “’Giving off’ impressions is what television does best (97).” He continues, “Our priests and presidents, our surgeons and lawyers, our educators and news casters need worry less about satisfying the demands of their discipline than the demands of good showmanship (98).” Postman believed that all politicians on television behave like actors.

I couldn’t believe it, but here is President Obama making history by being the first sitting president to appear on a daytime talk show, namely: The View.

#4 Obama 2.0

The Obama campaign harnessed the power of the internet to earn himself a spot as our Commander In Chief. He wasn't the first to use the internet as a marketing tool, but he was the first to successfully weave technology and the internet into the fabric of his campaign. Early on in the campaign, Obama reached out to the internet community utilizing social networks like Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, and Youtube. Obama also received far mentions on attention on blogs as well. I found these graphs in an article written by Frederic Lardinois.

#5: The media’s love affair with Obama.

The Media seemed to love Obama almost as much as the American hopefuls brainwashed by the idea of change. Paul Street notes in Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics, “Obama received by the most favorable coverage of any presidential candidate in the first five months of the presidential primary campaign.” Street added, “Two Democratic candidates received more coverage than all the Republicans combined (62).”

Matthew Sheffield wrote about this in his article, NBC Admits: Media in Love with Obama. He includes a quote from a very unhappy former president Bill Clinton, expressing his displeasure with this obvious trend. During a campaign stop in New Hampshire, Bill Clinton said, “It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, ‘Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn’t know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war.’” Clinton continued, “And you took that speech you’re now running on off your Web site in 2004. And there’s no difference in your voting record and Hillary’s ever since.” He added, “Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

#6: Call Obama Seabiscut

The American media has gotten a reputation for covering political elections like a spectator sport. This "horse race" coverage is a bad thing. Croteau and Hoyness believe the media are too often less interested in where candidates stand on the issues than in their electability as measured by polls. They write, "Candidates who can demonstrate their electability by doing well in early polls are much more likely to attract the campaign contributions-before any votes are cast-that are essential to run an effective campaign (239)." Coverage of elections this way highlights winning tactics, rather than substance, and therefore corrupts our ability to make informed choices.

Image: Google Images

"We usually cannont, or do not, experiance firsthand the goings on of public life. Consequently, as citizens, we are partially reliant on the news media for an informative and accurate account of what is happening in the world around us. That is why the media are such an important element of the democratic process. Citizens in a democracy need adequate information to make informed decisions and to take appropriate political action (Croteau and Hoyness, 240)."

#7: Obama Nation

The Obama campaign, through all of its actions, left followers starry-eyed and willing to follow Obama regardless of his campaign policies, and promises. His campaign was full of so many messages of hope and change, his speeches delivered so eloquently full of charisma, I became an outspoken Obama supporter, along with masses of Zombies, who also bought it all.

An article written for The Economist, titled, The Obama Cult, says the following: “Mr. Obama has inspired more passionate devotion than any modern American politician. People scream and faint at his rallies. Some wear T-shirts proclaiming him ‘The One’ and noting that ‘Jesus was a community organizer.’ An editor at Newsweek describes him as ‘above the country, above the world; he’s sort of God.’ He sets foreign hearts fluttering too. A Pew poll published this week finds that 93% of Germans expect him to do the right thing in world affairs. Only 14% thought that about Mr. Bush.”

I found a pretty funny video on Youtube demonstrating the lack of knowledge some Obama supporters had during the campaign.

#8: How Anti-war?

In a speech titled, Moving Forward in the Middle East, delivered to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in 2005, Obama said, “The U.S. invasion of Iraq was profoundly illegal, violation the United Nations Charter’s ban on aggressive and unprovoked warfare. By some estimates as of this writing, it has caused the deaths of more than 1 million Iraqis and led to the exodus and displacement of millions more.”

Liberal foreign relations scholar Stephen Zunes discusses Obama’s shift in opinion on the war in his article Barack Obama on the Middle East. He wrote, “Once Elected to the U.S. senate… his anti-war voice became muted. Obama supported unconditional funding for the Iraq War in both 2005 and 2006….Obama didn’t even make a floor speech on the war until a full year after his election. In it, he called for a reduction in the number of U.S. troops but no timetable for their withdrawal.”

With election season coming up I am mildly disturbed by the lack of talk about our foreign occupations. The Tea Party constantly accuses Obama of horrendous acts, but rarely discusses the wars, from which I have heard no quarrel. Could it be that our democratic president is more conservative on policies of foreign affairs than we were first made to believe? Or could it be that Obama just sold out on his personal beliefs, and decided to play ball with special interests?

Image courtesy from my friends at Black Agenda Report

#9: More conservative than first thought

America became far more conservative under the Bush era, and has continued to stay closer to the right under Obama. Jackob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson discuss this trend in their book, Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy. They wrote, "American politics made a stunning transit to the right even as the American public has not," producing a, "stark disconnect between the public and elites" Hacker and Pierson continued, "The Republicans who have tended to run the U.S. government since 2000 have seemingly defied the laws of political gravity." Street contends "transforming the nation's priorities in profoundly regressive, militaristic, and repressive ways even while possessing only the slimmest of majorities (Street, 180). During Obama's campaign, he told masses about how he would have joint conversations with democrats and republicans, and usher in a new era of politics.

#10: Thanks Huxley

Postman wrote, "What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate. In the Huxleyan prophecy, Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours. There is no need for wardens or gates or Ministries of Truth. When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as perpetual round of entertainments, when serious conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vauderville act, than a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility (Postman 136)."

How am I supposed to believe in a political process that I know is rigged from the start? The media constantly distracts us by diverting our attention away from local and foreign issues that are important. I know that much of what appears through the media is directly tied to the interests of profits. If it doesn't make money, its most likely not on TV. Why are we so addicted to bullshit?

Media Meditation #4: Phish 10/23/10 Amherst MA

(Photo Dave Vance copyright Phish)

Now this was fun. I love little more than seeing my favorite band Phish play live. Too much of my revenue goes directly to Phish shows. Its a bit of a problem. Nevertheless, I had never been to a show on the fall tour, and was rightfully excited about this one. Overall the scene was very much the same as any other Phish show that I have ever been to. Its like a never ending party. These guys are like machines, they never stop performing. They are currently deep into their fourth touring season since getting back together summer of last year. They will end this tour with three nights in Madison Square Garden for New Years. This time last year, they were holding a three day festival, Festival 8 in California. You could easily spend all the money you have ever made trying to follow Phish, and I am amazed at how many people never seem to miss a show. I need to find out a way to see Phish for free, this whole paying for music thing isn't seeing to work for me.

Media Meditation #3 People Doing Stupid Shit...in 3D!!!

So I did it. I broke down and bought myself a ticket to see Jackass 3D. Being a product of the 90's, I grew up watching the series Jackass on MTV. A TV series that featured stunts, pranks, and all around crude slap-stick comedy. I ate that shit up.

It probably began when I was a freshman in high school. I was a drummer in an em0-punk-rock band that played only covers. In between playing songs we would hang out and do stupid and dangerous things, partly influenced by the CKY videos we were watching. Created by professional skateboarder Bam Margera and Brandon Dicamillo, they were a mix between skateboarding and bored kids with video cameras doing dangerous things and hurting each other. I don't know exactly why these videos had such a draw. It was funny to watch others with nothing to better to do than cause a stir, document their dangerous exploits. I felt as though I could relate to these guys somehow, and often picked up the video camera myself to document dumb ideas that I had. (I once videotaped me and my friends jumping out the second story window onto a trampoline when my parents weren't home. Needless to say they were not amused when they found the tape still in the camera.)

Now for your amusement I have a compilation video of the best of the CKY 3, because it was the only one that would upload, brought to you by yournamissatan courtesy of Youtube.

These guys are idiots, and many of them struck it big when they were drafted onto the series of Jackass titles that followed. The Jackass franchise has been wildly successful with numerous spin-off series like Wildboys, and Viva La Bam, and 3 motion pictures of the same name. They have the art of toilet humor to a science. They know exactly what their audience wants, and what they are going to expect. With a modest production budget of $20 million, Jackass 3D raked in an estimated $50 million its first weekend. Pretty good for a bunch of Jackasses. I thought the movie was hilarious. Every stunt was produced masterfully to look good in 3D. The only problem I had was getting to the theater five minutes before the movie started on opening weekend. The 3D experience is seriously stiffed when you have your head cranked back at a sharp angle. Note to self: Don't pay for first row tickets for a 3D movie.

Censored 2011: US Department of Defense is the Worst Polluter on the Planet

(Photo: Nate Bierschenk)

Ahhhh Copenhagen, home of the semi-recent U.N. Climate Change Conference. A beautiful city that I had the chance to visit while I was studying abroad last fall. This is a picture that I took of an exhibit put on before the conference titled, "100 Places to Visit Before they disappear." The Danish exhibit featured 100 pictures of places at serious risk of environmental endangerment resulting from global warming.

What I found when I read the chapter "US Department of Defense is the Worst Polluter on the Planet" in Censored 2011, was that although the US Department of Defense is easily the largest polluter of carbon dioxide and other toxic emissions, it was deemed free from any discussion during the conference. Sara Flounders writes in her article, "By every measure, the Pentagon is the largest user of petroleum products and energy in general. Yet the Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements." Throughout all of the US Military's operations, it has never been held responsible for the effects of its activities on the environment. During negations for the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the US demanded that any military operations worldwide, including those in participation with the UN and NATO, be exempted from measurement or reductions. To add insult to injury, the US under the Bush administration promptly refused to sign the protocol altogether, and instead urged Congress to pass a provision guaranteeing the US military exemptions from any energy reduction or measurement. According to Lucinda Marshall, director of the Feminist Peace Network, "The US Department of Defense is the largest polluter in the world, producing more hazardous wast than the five largest US chemical companies combined." Her article contends that Depleted uranium, petroleum, oil, pesticides, defoliant agents such as Agent Orange, lead, along with various amounts of radiation from weaponry produced, tested, and used, are only some of the pollutants from which the US military is contaminating the environment.

According to the report, The Military's Impact on The Environment: A Neglected Aspect of the Sustainable Development Debate, discusses the links between the military, the environment, and human security. It lists the Military stresses on the Environment as; Pollution of the air, land and water in peacetime; the immediate and long-term effects of armed conflict; militarization of outer space; nuclear weapons development and production; and land use. This paper shows how military's from around the world negatively affect the world's environment. It contends that the world's military forces lone are responsible for the release of more than two thirds of the worlds Carbon Dioxide. It continues, "During the Cold War alone, as results of naval accidents there are at least 50 nuclear warheads and 11 nuclear reactors littering the ocean floor. There are more nuclear nuclear reactors at sea than on land. The Pentagon generates five times more toxins than the five major US chemical companies combined. "

The Following are examples of pollution caused by the US military from the article in Censored 2011.

• Depleted uranium: Tens of thousands of pounds of microparticles of radioactive and highly toxic waste contaminate the Middle East, Central Asia and the Balkins.
  
• Thirty-five years after the Vietnam War, dioxin contamination is three hundred to four hundred times higher than "safe" levels, resulting in severe birth defects and cancers into the third generation of those affected.
  
• US military policies and wars in Iraq have created severe desertification of 90 percent of the land, changing Iraq from a food exporter into a country that imports 80 percent of its food.
  
• In the US, military bases top the Superfund list of the most polluted places, as perchlorate and trichloroethylene seep into the drinking water, aquifers, and soil.
• Nuclear weapons testing in the American Southwest and the South Pacific Islands has contminated millions of acres of land and water with radiation, while uranium tailings defile Navajo reservations.
  
• Rusting barrels of chemicals and solvents and millions of rounds of ammunition are criminally abandoned by the Pentagon in bases around the world.

Midterm Reflection: No Longer Amused

After studying media for eight weeks in this class, what have you learned? Please be specific.

• I have learned to be more wary of the media that I consume on a regular basis. Television programs, no matter how educational you may think they are, exist only to entertain you to the point where you will continue to watch long enough to consume advertisements. I have also become more aware of the media conglomerates that own the media that I consume, and the persuasive techniques they use to promote their ideals. I am trying to do a better job at "reading" television critically, in order to try to see the underlying motives of the programs.
  

What is the most important thing you have learned about yourself as a critical reader, a writer, and a thinker in this class so far?

• I have learned from articles that we read like "Get Smarter," from James Cascio, and from the Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death," that I am not alone when struggling through a book. Many in my generation tainted with the pervasiveness of television and the Internet, easily become distracted when reading a book. This warping of our attention spans make it more difficult for us to think critically. I have learned to focus more reading, and to block out outside distractions when I do. I really need to put in the time necessary to fully understand what the author is saying.
  

What’s one thing you would do differently this first half of the semester if you were to take this class again?

• I would not take as long as I have been to write on my personal blog. I don't know why, but I feel overwhelmed publishing my personal media meditations on a public blog. Because I am behind by one posting, I have to struggle to find new topics to write about. Because I am posting on a public blog, I only want to present the best content that reflects my abilities.
  

What’s one thing you would like me to do differently this first half of the semester if you were to take this class again?

• If I took this class again, I would want you to spend more time on the reading reflections after we complete a book. I think it would make more sense to really dig deeply into our assigned readings the day after they were scheduled to be completed. I feel as though we may have waited too long to jump into some of the texts we read, and it would be more beneficial to review them while they are still fresh in our minds.
  

Please comment on the usefulness of the power tools, our quizzes, the course blog, your personal blog, our films, and our books as learning tools.

• I really enjoy the learning tools implemented throughout this class. I think they suit the subjects and topics in this class well. The power tools are something that everyone should know, and I am glad that it is held at such high importance, but I feel as though we could delve deeper into some of its content. Perhaps specific examples of some persuasive techniques, or trends. The quizzes are good to get a better understanding of what we should be learning from this class. The films are interesting, and show perspectives not typically seen in most media. I have to say that "Amusing Ourselves to Death," is one of the best books that I have read in recent years, and I feel is a very important perspective that should be considered. All in all, I really like the way this class is going, and I feel that I am learning important information that will make me stronger.
  

Camp Champ Radio Spot: Attention all Units!

Attention Units!

Tired of a null technological existence?

Plug into “The Feed”!!!

This meg brag new technology will replace all of your old electronics, No need to carry that laptop to class, or put that phone up to your ear!

Just ask Brad Pitt!

“I have no need to memorize movie scripts anymore, the Feed does all that pointless work for me!”

Your brain is just an outdated computer-Upgrade to Feed!

With Feed you can chat while Driving- No more tickets!

Get updated on the latest styles-INSTANTLY!

You can research dinner recipes while sitting in class!

Balance your checkbook while brushing your teeth!

Solve world conflict, save the rainforest, save the world---> all the information how to is just a Feed away!

If you are listening to this right now, you are not Plugged in! Join the new world and Plug into the Feed! All the units are doing it!

Media Meditation # 2: Moon Nazi's are on the way.

The other day I stumbled upon a trailer for Iron Sky. It is an upcoming Finnish feature-full length black comedy/ science fiction film due for completion at the end of 2011. Its directed by Timo Vuorensola and produced by Samuli Torssonen, the masterminds behind their greatly successful parody, Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning. Haven't heard of it? Neither have I. Apparently these guys have a world-wide cult following for their last movie, and have used their momentum to fund their new project Iron Sky. The film takes place in the year 2018, when the Nazis, who had fled the Earth to dark side of the moon in 1945, return to claim the Earth. To understand, you really need to watch the trailer.




Whats cool about this movie was the way the crew used their fanbase and an awesome viral campaign to gain financial support. Their website allowes their fans to suggest ideas for the plot, follow the process of making the film, shop for merchandise, and even invest in "war bonds," that are basically donations that give you some cool stuff. The fans have donated much of the films budget through their campaign. The film crew really harnessed the power of the Web 2.0. A film like this couldn't have been created even a few years ago. I couldn't help but think about the persuasive techniques they used in order to gain their support. They could have used bribery by persuading their fans to give money. The idea of Nazis living on the moon is a pretty hilarious concept, and the humor is the driving force behind the success of the film. A some form of bribery could have been used too, the more money fans give, the better the film could be when completed. The production techniques are also one of the reasons the film has so much hype. Something about slow pacing, crafty special effects, and the epic soundtrack, play with both the Limbic and the Reptilian sections of the brain. No need to engage the Neocortex for this film, thinking won't be necessary. Just sit back, relax, and enjoy the awesomeness of space Nazi's.