I submitted this to the opinion desk so whether they publish it or not, here you go!
Over the past few days, everyone from Adolf Hitler to Sarah Palin (although, to some people, there is no difference between the two) has been blamed for the horrific shooting in Arizona. Reports say that the suspect, Jared Laughner’s, Myspace page cited Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifest as his favorite books (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/31967). How can one be both a Nazi (state control) AND A Communist (control by the people)? But I digress
However, the Tea Party, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck have also been cited as influences on the suspect. That their “vitriolic” and “violent” messages drove the suspect to kill a democrat to “take his country back.” This paper even furthered this line of thinking in an opinion piece run Monday that featured quotes by only conservative people, some of which, I know for a fact (since I heard them said) were either sarcastic or in jest.
Let’s stop and look at this for a minute. The suspected shooter was a devoted Tea Party member, loved Hitler, and was a communist? Now, I’m no political science major, but a few of those ideals seem diametrically opposed to each other.
So I propose a third person to blame: the person who actually carried out the attack? How about we blame the man who bought the gun and pulled the trigger? I know this concept of personal responsibility is completely foreign to Americans (I mean, it’s not like our founders based our government on it or anything), but we should use this idea.
I listen to Beck and Palin on an almost daily basis, and somehow I’ve never felt motivated by these people to go on a killing spree. I’ve read The Communist Manifesto and watched MSNBC, and yet those views have not caused me to attempt violent overthrow of the government.
So instead of blaming everyone else for this tragedy, let’s blame the person who actually committed it. Yes, he may have been a troubled young man, and all of these ideals may have influenced him, but only the shooter is actually responsible for his actions.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Long Time, No See
Yes, it's been a while since I blogged here. To be honest, I've become a bit politically cynical lately. I've been so busy "being a journalist" in classes that I've distanced myself from politics. However, a few things have happened lately to start to bring me out of that attitude.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed- most people don't realize that this policy was not made to keep gays out of the military. It is supposed to apply to all people. Neither straight nor gay soldiers are supposed to talk about their sex lives. However, as a passionate advocate for gay rights, I am thrilled that all people who want to serve their country now can do so. There is no greater honor than fighting for one's country, and now every American has the opportunity to do so.
9-11 First Reponders Bill- This is both an example of why I love and hate politics. In Washington, people can't just vote on something on its own merits. Everything has to be bundled with other things so people have to vote for stuff they don't like in order to pass stuff they do like. Originally, the 9-11 responders bill was bundled in a larger defense bill which failed. However, it was later voted on on its own, and passed. It seems to be that a lot mroe would get done if things were voted on individually instead of in a lump. However, I am glad this bill passed. Those who responded on 9-11 are nothing short of heroes, and should have all medical ailemnts they got from responding taken care of.
The 112th Congress begins with the reading of the Constitution- how cool is this? The House of Representatives today read the entire Constitution of the United States, from start to finish, to start the new legislative session. Unfortunately, very few representatives were in the house chaimber for the reading. It only took a little over an hour people! And you couldn't sit through that? I know it's hard, actually having to listen to the rules of your job, but I have to do it, why shouldn't they? I applaud the house leadership for taking the step, though.
My application to Mercury Radio Arts- Yes, yesterday I sent my cover letter and resume to Mercury Radio Arts- Glenn Beck's company. It would be way more fun than spending the next three years in law school :)
Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed- most people don't realize that this policy was not made to keep gays out of the military. It is supposed to apply to all people. Neither straight nor gay soldiers are supposed to talk about their sex lives. However, as a passionate advocate for gay rights, I am thrilled that all people who want to serve their country now can do so. There is no greater honor than fighting for one's country, and now every American has the opportunity to do so.
9-11 First Reponders Bill- This is both an example of why I love and hate politics. In Washington, people can't just vote on something on its own merits. Everything has to be bundled with other things so people have to vote for stuff they don't like in order to pass stuff they do like. Originally, the 9-11 responders bill was bundled in a larger defense bill which failed. However, it was later voted on on its own, and passed. It seems to be that a lot mroe would get done if things were voted on individually instead of in a lump. However, I am glad this bill passed. Those who responded on 9-11 are nothing short of heroes, and should have all medical ailemnts they got from responding taken care of.
The 112th Congress begins with the reading of the Constitution- how cool is this? The House of Representatives today read the entire Constitution of the United States, from start to finish, to start the new legislative session. Unfortunately, very few representatives were in the house chaimber for the reading. It only took a little over an hour people! And you couldn't sit through that? I know it's hard, actually having to listen to the rules of your job, but I have to do it, why shouldn't they? I applaud the house leadership for taking the step, though.
My application to Mercury Radio Arts- Yes, yesterday I sent my cover letter and resume to Mercury Radio Arts- Glenn Beck's company. It would be way more fun than spending the next three years in law school :)
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The NAACP and the Tea Party
Last night, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed a resolution against the "racist elements" of the Tea Party movement. NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous said in a written statement that they have no problem with the organization itself, just its tolerance for racism and bigotry.
This comes on the heels of a billboard in Iowa created by a local tea party group which pictured Adolf Hitler, Barack Obama, and Vladamir Lenin, with the words "Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naive" underneath. The group admitted that in hindsight, the billboard did not accurately portray the message they were going for, and other tea party groups have voiced their disagreement with the billboard.
Where both the NAACP and the Iowa incident get it wrong, is that the tea party is not a national organization. It is a conglomeration of local groups who believe in a common cause. There is no national organizing structure or leader, nor is there a set code of conduct or platform. Yes, there have been groups who have claimed to be in charge and who have organized tea party conventions and conferences, but they are mistaken. It is a grassroots movement.
And that is the point of the tea party- people who get together on their own because they share a concern and love of their country. I have attended three tea party events in two cities and interviewed dozens of tea party members. I have seen everyone form grandparents to toddlers at the events. I have even interviewed tea party opponents and protestors. And in no instance on either side have I seen any act of violence, bigotry or racism. Yes, there may be individuals with those beliefs in the tea party, but that is not the point of the group. The group is about opposing out of control government spending and the overreach of government authority, not about bashing blacks or gays. If it was, I would not call myself a member of the organization.
Yes, I consider myself a member of the tea party. I also consider myself a libertarian, and supporter of gay rights. But i consider myself first and foremost a journalist. I have never attended a tea party event as a participant, only as a reporter. I do not support the actions of the group in Iowa, nor do I believe it can or should represent the group as a whole. Maybe those who claim to know what the group is about and how dangerous and racist it is should attend a meeting, rally, or simply do some research.
This comes on the heels of a billboard in Iowa created by a local tea party group which pictured Adolf Hitler, Barack Obama, and Vladamir Lenin, with the words "Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naive" underneath. The group admitted that in hindsight, the billboard did not accurately portray the message they were going for, and other tea party groups have voiced their disagreement with the billboard.
Where both the NAACP and the Iowa incident get it wrong, is that the tea party is not a national organization. It is a conglomeration of local groups who believe in a common cause. There is no national organizing structure or leader, nor is there a set code of conduct or platform. Yes, there have been groups who have claimed to be in charge and who have organized tea party conventions and conferences, but they are mistaken. It is a grassroots movement.
And that is the point of the tea party- people who get together on their own because they share a concern and love of their country. I have attended three tea party events in two cities and interviewed dozens of tea party members. I have seen everyone form grandparents to toddlers at the events. I have even interviewed tea party opponents and protestors. And in no instance on either side have I seen any act of violence, bigotry or racism. Yes, there may be individuals with those beliefs in the tea party, but that is not the point of the group. The group is about opposing out of control government spending and the overreach of government authority, not about bashing blacks or gays. If it was, I would not call myself a member of the organization.
Yes, I consider myself a member of the tea party. I also consider myself a libertarian, and supporter of gay rights. But i consider myself first and foremost a journalist. I have never attended a tea party event as a participant, only as a reporter. I do not support the actions of the group in Iowa, nor do I believe it can or should represent the group as a whole. Maybe those who claim to know what the group is about and how dangerous and racist it is should attend a meeting, rally, or simply do some research.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
15 States Sue Over Health Care Law
15 States Sue Over Health Care Law
By: Ashley Freije
Within minutes of President Obama singing the health care bill into law, 13 states filed a joint lawsuit against the government, claiming the law was unconstitutional.
The attorney generals of Florida, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, and South Dakota filed suit against the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services. In their suit, they claim that the health care legislation violates numerous articles of the Constitution. Indiana and Virginia have also filed their own lawsuits.
The suits claim that the new law infringes on states rights, by indirectly dictating how states must allocate funds. The new law cuts federal funding for Medicaid. However, coverage must remain the same, so states are responsible for funding the difference. This, the lawsuit argues, is the government taking control of state budgets, which violates state sovereignty.
The tax on individuals who do not have health insurance, the states argue, violates Section 9 of Article 1, which says that the Congress can levy no direct tax. The states also claim that the law violates individual liberties, and that the Constitution does not allow the government to mandate that people have health coverage, or buy any product.
It will take some time, however, to see how these lawsuits play out. According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, in an interview with Newsmax magazine, that lawsuits such as this take about four years to work their way to the supreme court. Napolitano believes the new law is equivalent to “commandeering” state legislatures. He says that the Supreme Court has already ruled that areas of human behavior that are not delegated specifically to the federal government fall under state jurisdiction.
The best case that states have in a lawsuit seems to be that the Constitution requires that all citizens be treated equally. With the “Louisiana purchase” and “cornhusker kickback” for Nebraska, the law does not treat these states and their citizens the same as all of the other people in America. While the Nebraska deal was removed in the reconciliation bill, Tennessee and North Dakota received deals in the same bill.
The White House has not remained silent on the lawsuits. They cited two Supreme Court decisions in their support for the constitutionality of the bill. In US. V Southeastern Underwriters Association (1944), the Court rules the Sherman Anti-trust act applies to insurance companies. And in Gonzales v Raich (2005) the Court said that Congress could ban the use of cannabis, even where states had approved its use for medical use. These cases, the White House argues, show a precedent for government involvement both in the area of insurance, and in state issues.
However, the White House fails to note that Congress itself went against the Southeastern decision. In the decision, the Court said that it was not up to them to decide if Congress should mandate insurance, and that the Court would go along with whatever Congress decided. In 1945 Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act. This act exempted insurance companies from most federal regulations, as long as states regulate the industry. It also says that federal acts that do not explicitly seek to regulate insurance cannot supersede state acts. The health care bill seeks to change health care, not regulate insurance. Under this act, whatever regulations are to be put on insurance in the bill are a violation of Congress’s own laws.
While the states suing the government do have a solid case, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn the law. With two elections likely before the court even hears the case, there is a stronger chance for the law to be repealed than overturned by the Court.
By: Ashley Freije
Within minutes of President Obama singing the health care bill into law, 13 states filed a joint lawsuit against the government, claiming the law was unconstitutional.
The attorney generals of Florida, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, and South Dakota filed suit against the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services. In their suit, they claim that the health care legislation violates numerous articles of the Constitution. Indiana and Virginia have also filed their own lawsuits.
The suits claim that the new law infringes on states rights, by indirectly dictating how states must allocate funds. The new law cuts federal funding for Medicaid. However, coverage must remain the same, so states are responsible for funding the difference. This, the lawsuit argues, is the government taking control of state budgets, which violates state sovereignty.
The tax on individuals who do not have health insurance, the states argue, violates Section 9 of Article 1, which says that the Congress can levy no direct tax. The states also claim that the law violates individual liberties, and that the Constitution does not allow the government to mandate that people have health coverage, or buy any product.
It will take some time, however, to see how these lawsuits play out. According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, in an interview with Newsmax magazine, that lawsuits such as this take about four years to work their way to the supreme court. Napolitano believes the new law is equivalent to “commandeering” state legislatures. He says that the Supreme Court has already ruled that areas of human behavior that are not delegated specifically to the federal government fall under state jurisdiction.
The best case that states have in a lawsuit seems to be that the Constitution requires that all citizens be treated equally. With the “Louisiana purchase” and “cornhusker kickback” for Nebraska, the law does not treat these states and their citizens the same as all of the other people in America. While the Nebraska deal was removed in the reconciliation bill, Tennessee and North Dakota received deals in the same bill.
The White House has not remained silent on the lawsuits. They cited two Supreme Court decisions in their support for the constitutionality of the bill. In US. V Southeastern Underwriters Association (1944), the Court rules the Sherman Anti-trust act applies to insurance companies. And in Gonzales v Raich (2005) the Court said that Congress could ban the use of cannabis, even where states had approved its use for medical use. These cases, the White House argues, show a precedent for government involvement both in the area of insurance, and in state issues.
However, the White House fails to note that Congress itself went against the Southeastern decision. In the decision, the Court said that it was not up to them to decide if Congress should mandate insurance, and that the Court would go along with whatever Congress decided. In 1945 Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act. This act exempted insurance companies from most federal regulations, as long as states regulate the industry. It also says that federal acts that do not explicitly seek to regulate insurance cannot supersede state acts. The health care bill seeks to change health care, not regulate insurance. Under this act, whatever regulations are to be put on insurance in the bill are a violation of Congress’s own laws.
While the states suing the government do have a solid case, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn the law. With two elections likely before the court even hears the case, there is a stronger chance for the law to be repealed than overturned by the Court.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Time to Be Counted
Time to Be Counted
By Ashley Freije
It is hard to go to the bathroom on campus without seeing a flyer for the 2010 census on the inside of the front door.
After a controversial pre-census survey last fall, asking questions such as how much time a person spends driving to work or how many times they flush their toilet, the official 2010 census will arrive in mailboxes in mid-March.
The Constitution requires a count of all people in the nation every ten years, in order to get a count of how many people live in the country, and to reevaluate how many representatives every state receives in the House of Representatives. The results of the census also lead to redrawing congressional districts, and determine how money is distributed among districts.
With such high stakes on the line, districts make huge efforts to make sure every resident in their area completes the census, and Bloomington is no exception. Count Us IN is a campus effort to get out the word about the 2010 census, and what students need to do. According to the group’s video, students living on campus or in Bloomington should fill out their census in Bloomington, as it is their “usual residence.” Even international students, according to the video, should fill out a census in Bloomington.
Some, however, do not think this is correct. According to IU senior Courtney Flannery, “I think that counting students with college as their main residence is a disservice to the students home communities.”
Flannery says that she does not want tax dollars going to Bloomington due to her being counted on the census, as she will only be living in the city for a few more months. She says other students she knows feel the same. She also disagrees with Count Us IN’s claim that international students should fill out a census, saying she does not feel non-citizens should be counted on the census.
She also says she does not want to be counted twice by filling out the census in Bloomington. Question 10 on the census form asks if any member of the house sometimes lives elsewhere, including the option of “college housing.” If a student’s parent fills them out on their census, and they fill out their own, Flannery worries she and others will be counted twice on the census, giving inaccurate population figures.
The government is not taking the census lightly. It bought a $3.5 million ad during the Super Bowl to advertize the census with several Hollywood actors, and nationwide campaigns to raise awareness for the census before questionnaires arrive in mailboxes in mid-March.
The census will become even more important next year when redistricting occurs, and candidates prepare for reelection. Districts may have completely different make-ups, or may be lost and given to more populous states.
Those who chose not to fill out their forms and turn them in face the possibility of a census worker coming to their door, and a $5000 fine. While there are other questions on the survey, all have been deemed “necessary and proper” to governance. The official census day is April 1. For more information visit census.gov or 2010census.gov
By Ashley Freije
It is hard to go to the bathroom on campus without seeing a flyer for the 2010 census on the inside of the front door.
After a controversial pre-census survey last fall, asking questions such as how much time a person spends driving to work or how many times they flush their toilet, the official 2010 census will arrive in mailboxes in mid-March.
The Constitution requires a count of all people in the nation every ten years, in order to get a count of how many people live in the country, and to reevaluate how many representatives every state receives in the House of Representatives. The results of the census also lead to redrawing congressional districts, and determine how money is distributed among districts.
With such high stakes on the line, districts make huge efforts to make sure every resident in their area completes the census, and Bloomington is no exception. Count Us IN is a campus effort to get out the word about the 2010 census, and what students need to do. According to the group’s video, students living on campus or in Bloomington should fill out their census in Bloomington, as it is their “usual residence.” Even international students, according to the video, should fill out a census in Bloomington.
Some, however, do not think this is correct. According to IU senior Courtney Flannery, “I think that counting students with college as their main residence is a disservice to the students home communities.”
Flannery says that she does not want tax dollars going to Bloomington due to her being counted on the census, as she will only be living in the city for a few more months. She says other students she knows feel the same. She also disagrees with Count Us IN’s claim that international students should fill out a census, saying she does not feel non-citizens should be counted on the census.
She also says she does not want to be counted twice by filling out the census in Bloomington. Question 10 on the census form asks if any member of the house sometimes lives elsewhere, including the option of “college housing.” If a student’s parent fills them out on their census, and they fill out their own, Flannery worries she and others will be counted twice on the census, giving inaccurate population figures.
The government is not taking the census lightly. It bought a $3.5 million ad during the Super Bowl to advertize the census with several Hollywood actors, and nationwide campaigns to raise awareness for the census before questionnaires arrive in mailboxes in mid-March.
The census will become even more important next year when redistricting occurs, and candidates prepare for reelection. Districts may have completely different make-ups, or may be lost and given to more populous states.
Those who chose not to fill out their forms and turn them in face the possibility of a census worker coming to their door, and a $5000 fine. While there are other questions on the survey, all have been deemed “necessary and proper” to governance. The official census day is April 1. For more information visit census.gov or 2010census.gov
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Obama Provides Health-Insurance Plan
Obama Provides Health-Insurance Plan
By: Ashley Freije
President Obama released his own health insurance reform proposal on February 22. Unlike previous attempts, his proposal is not an actual bill. Rather, it is a list of points divided into ten sections. The proposal preceded his meeting with republican and democratic lawmakers on February 24.
As with previous bills, people may keep their current insurance. “Nothing in the proposal forces anyone to change the insurance they have. Period,” reads the White House website. The proposal aims to create a “health insurance exchange” which will consist of private insurance companies that will compete for business and will have to “follow common-sense rules of the road that rein in the worst insurance industry abuses.“
In a new move, though, the proposal requires members of congress to purchase their health insurance from this same exchange.
The proposal will punish those who do not have health insurance, saying those who can afford insurance have “the responsibility to purchase it.” There are waivers: if premiums exceed 8 percent of one’s income, if one has a religious objection, makes less than the amount required to file taxes, or is a member of an Indian tribe, they are not required to purchase health insurance. If they are under the age of 30, however, they can purchase a “low-cost catastrophic plan” to cover serious injury or illness.
When it comes to funding, the proposal lacks details. It says the government will save money by increasing rebates on Medicare prescription drugs. All the website says is that “when enacted” health insurance reform will be completely paid for, and that it will reduce the deficit by more than $100-billion. It will enact excise taxes on insurance premiums costing $27,500 for families and $10,200 for singles in 2018.
The website devotes an entire section to republican ideas that the president incorporated into the bill as well, including expanding the dependency age to 26, and advancing medical liability reform.
The president also proposed “hundreds of billions of dollars” in tax credits to help middle-class families pay for insurance. The plan proposes tax credits for families making less than $250,000 There will also be financial assistance for low-income families. It also claims “tens of billions” of dollars in tax credits for small businesses to purchase insurance for their employees.
The proposal does, however, set many restrictions on insurance companies. New plans must offer preventative care, such as immunizations, for free. Current plans will be prevented from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, having different premiums based on gender or salary, and from dropping coverage when someone becomes sick. The act also limits the amount insurance companies can charge based on age.
The bill devotes an entire section to Medicare. The proposal will give incentives to doctors to improve care, and it will provide seniors with $250 to offset prescription costs when they reach the gap in Medicare coverage. The website says, “Medicare is a sacred trust with America’s seniors, and this Act preserves it.”
Like other proposed legislation, the president’s plan calls for an increased health care workforce, and provides ways to increase it, such as student loan repayment programs and greater scholarship programs.
The entire proposal can be read at whitehouse.gov
By: Ashley Freije
President Obama released his own health insurance reform proposal on February 22. Unlike previous attempts, his proposal is not an actual bill. Rather, it is a list of points divided into ten sections. The proposal preceded his meeting with republican and democratic lawmakers on February 24.
As with previous bills, people may keep their current insurance. “Nothing in the proposal forces anyone to change the insurance they have. Period,” reads the White House website. The proposal aims to create a “health insurance exchange” which will consist of private insurance companies that will compete for business and will have to “follow common-sense rules of the road that rein in the worst insurance industry abuses.“
In a new move, though, the proposal requires members of congress to purchase their health insurance from this same exchange.
The proposal will punish those who do not have health insurance, saying those who can afford insurance have “the responsibility to purchase it.” There are waivers: if premiums exceed 8 percent of one’s income, if one has a religious objection, makes less than the amount required to file taxes, or is a member of an Indian tribe, they are not required to purchase health insurance. If they are under the age of 30, however, they can purchase a “low-cost catastrophic plan” to cover serious injury or illness.
When it comes to funding, the proposal lacks details. It says the government will save money by increasing rebates on Medicare prescription drugs. All the website says is that “when enacted” health insurance reform will be completely paid for, and that it will reduce the deficit by more than $100-billion. It will enact excise taxes on insurance premiums costing $27,500 for families and $10,200 for singles in 2018.
The website devotes an entire section to republican ideas that the president incorporated into the bill as well, including expanding the dependency age to 26, and advancing medical liability reform.
The president also proposed “hundreds of billions of dollars” in tax credits to help middle-class families pay for insurance. The plan proposes tax credits for families making less than $250,000 There will also be financial assistance for low-income families. It also claims “tens of billions” of dollars in tax credits for small businesses to purchase insurance for their employees.
The proposal does, however, set many restrictions on insurance companies. New plans must offer preventative care, such as immunizations, for free. Current plans will be prevented from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, having different premiums based on gender or salary, and from dropping coverage when someone becomes sick. The act also limits the amount insurance companies can charge based on age.
The bill devotes an entire section to Medicare. The proposal will give incentives to doctors to improve care, and it will provide seniors with $250 to offset prescription costs when they reach the gap in Medicare coverage. The website says, “Medicare is a sacred trust with America’s seniors, and this Act preserves it.”
Like other proposed legislation, the president’s plan calls for an increased health care workforce, and provides ways to increase it, such as student loan repayment programs and greater scholarship programs.
The entire proposal can be read at whitehouse.gov
Let's Set the Record Straight Once Again
I stumbled upon a blog today. It picks apart my friend and I's appearance last week on Fox and Friends to discuss Baron Hill. Many blogs have written about the incident and its fallout, but with this blog, I feel it is time to set the record completely straight.
My "class project" was for J-210 Visual Communications. I was to create a photo slideshow using still photographs and natural sound. I knew that the school newspaper would have an audio recording of the town hall that I could use, and I gathered sounds from outside of the event.
Once inside the event, I saw that no audio or video recording was allowed. Not wanting to break the rules, I went to the woman handing out press passes and explained my project. I gladly gave her my contact information, assured her that I would not use flash or be a problem, and she gave me the press sticker.
After we were pulled aside and told to start filming, I was ready to let it go. I wanted an answer though, and asked my friend to ask the congressman why we couldn't film. I did not want to become a part of the story, just report on it. Ask any of my professors, they will tell you every piece of mine has been fair and objective.
I never had any ill-intentions or want to make a hit-piece on the congressman. I only wanted a few photographs of him speaking at the event for my project.
Was I a republican? Yes. Am I now? No, I am a libertarian. Yes, I have donated to republican candidates. Yes, I admire Bill O'Reilly. However, when reporting, I keep my views out of it. It is not my place to frame a story to meet my needs.
Since when did having a dream and a political ideology become a crime? Would this blog have mentioned either if I said being on CNN was a dream come true or if I was liberal? I doubt it. I feel they are non issues, and I will apologize for neither.
Yes, the story is 6 months old, but it is completely relevant if Congressman Hill is running for office, no matter what it is. All constituents, not just Congressman HIll's, have a right to question their leaders. They are the ones employing them. They are the boss.
At least my name is out there. I may need to retool this blog to be more news oriented and create a new opinion one, as this blog has been linked too in the article. But I will keep doing what I love to do: reporting the news and providing analysis and opinion. I hope you will stick around for the ride.
My "class project" was for J-210 Visual Communications. I was to create a photo slideshow using still photographs and natural sound. I knew that the school newspaper would have an audio recording of the town hall that I could use, and I gathered sounds from outside of the event.
Once inside the event, I saw that no audio or video recording was allowed. Not wanting to break the rules, I went to the woman handing out press passes and explained my project. I gladly gave her my contact information, assured her that I would not use flash or be a problem, and she gave me the press sticker.
After we were pulled aside and told to start filming, I was ready to let it go. I wanted an answer though, and asked my friend to ask the congressman why we couldn't film. I did not want to become a part of the story, just report on it. Ask any of my professors, they will tell you every piece of mine has been fair and objective.
I never had any ill-intentions or want to make a hit-piece on the congressman. I only wanted a few photographs of him speaking at the event for my project.
Was I a republican? Yes. Am I now? No, I am a libertarian. Yes, I have donated to republican candidates. Yes, I admire Bill O'Reilly. However, when reporting, I keep my views out of it. It is not my place to frame a story to meet my needs.
Since when did having a dream and a political ideology become a crime? Would this blog have mentioned either if I said being on CNN was a dream come true or if I was liberal? I doubt it. I feel they are non issues, and I will apologize for neither.
Yes, the story is 6 months old, but it is completely relevant if Congressman Hill is running for office, no matter what it is. All constituents, not just Congressman HIll's, have a right to question their leaders. They are the ones employing them. They are the boss.
At least my name is out there. I may need to retool this blog to be more news oriented and create a new opinion one, as this blog has been linked too in the article. But I will keep doing what I love to do: reporting the news and providing analysis and opinion. I hope you will stick around for the ride.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)