The NCAA: Obsessed with their image?

Well, the NCAA has really screwed up. For the past two months, there have been allegations surrounding Auburn stud QB Cam Newton about possible academic cheating and for working with an agent. The first allegation that was released in October was that Newton cheated on tests during his tenure at the University of Florida. During the weeks that followed, a firestorm of possible NCAA infractions were brought out into the public against Newton. The one with the most clout was an allegation that Newton's father, Reverend Cecil Newton, contacted a Mississippi State employee and told them that Newton would need "more than a scholarship" to receive his son's talents, later know to be $200,000 dollars.

Here comes the twist to the saga of Cameron Newton. After months of contacting a multitude of sources and thorough investigation, the NCAA announced, well, pretty much nothing. Their statement was that "we do not have sufficient evidence that Cam Newton or anyone from Auburn was aware of this activity, which led to his reinstatement". Even after finding much of the claims factual, the NCAA clears him to play. The only consequences are that Rev. Newton will no longer be able to attend Auburn football games. This is better than a slap on the wrist; it's more like a holding of a hand. The NCAA has now revealed a major loophole into the recruiting process, basically admitting that as long as the player eligible has no knowledge of the misgivings happening behind his back, he's OK. Now, it appears as though parents and agents can interact freely without permission from the student or the NCAA. Not good.

Also, I guarantee that if this was a back-up kicker for a school like Fresno State (they are really bad), the player would have been suspended and given a severe punishment of some sort. But since this is Cameron Newton, the Heisman front-runner and quite possibly the face of college football right now, nothing will happen in order to keep their own image as spotless as possible by keeping him in full effect. So the next time you tune in ESPN and see Newton celebrating with the Auburn faithful in the stands, know that the NCAA has compromised its own rules for their own image.

Censorship and the Government

One of the most important and influential innovations over the past two years has been the creation of the organization "Wikileaks". This website is a non-for-profit media source that publishes confidential documents from anonymous sources. These documents tend to revolve around American issues and conflicts, such as the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. The governments that are in question, such as the United States, states that “We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information.” The United States government has strongly opposed Wikileaks because they claim that the documents are meant to be highly classified and it could be a national security risk to the entire nation.

This goes along well with what we have been discussing in our American Studies class. With the Perilous Times project, we have been asked to investigate civil liberties issues in our specific wartime era. The question is this: Like in our Perilous Times project, are the government's attempts at censoring Wikileaks a violation of our free speech? Personally, since we are at a time of war, I do not believe that this is a free speech issue. Since Wikileaks is a free source, that means anybody, including terrorists in the Middle East, can obtain these files. In order to carry out our duties in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is essential that our enemy not obtain any information that could compromise the mission at hand. So I do agree with the government's desire to stop these harmful documents from being released, as it actually is a matter of national security for us all.

Mixed Signals

Earlier this week, MSNBC suspended its leading liberal voice, anchor Keith Olbermann, for his donations to the Democratic Party during this month's midterm elections for the United States Congress. The primetime news anchor states that he did not know about this rule and he has since apologized. This suspension has been used as a display between objectivity and opinion on television today.

I think there are two parts of this story that are particular interesting. First, I personally believe that this move is a very different one than I would have suspected. Over the years, MSNBC has been accused by multiple sources of having an extremely liberal bias towards the news. This strong difference can change the news, known from its inception to be objective, into something much more opinionated in order to persuade viewers in a certain way. Even with these reports, MSNBC refused to alter their technique, most notably leaving their extremely left-wing anchor in the nightly news. I think that MSNBC was sending a message to the American viewers and beyond that the were accepting their role as liberal media. On the other hand, suspending Olbermann for his donations to the Democratic party is nearly in exact opposite of the signal that MSNBC was sending previous. MSNBC was probably doing so to appeal to their audience that they are "neutral" and that they hold their star, Olbermann, to the same standard. However, it did not come out this way. The network has completely contradicted themselves and sent mixed and insecure messages. If they want to have a liberal bias, go ahead and announce it for everyone to know. But to not, claim neutrality, and screw news in your favor is just wrong and hurtful to the public. So what do you think: is MSNBC sending mixed signals to their viewers?

The Pledge of Allegiance

Earlier in class today, we discussed civil rights here in the United States. We participated in an exercise where our teachers gave us certain instances and we had to decide whether they were protected by the government or limited by the government. For most of the situations, I agreed with the governments' stances on these very controversial topics. I believed that usually the government has taken the right direction that keeps our civil liberties and follows the Constitution while keeping our citizens safe. But for one, I strongly disagreed.

The issue was this: "Students refuse to cite the Pledge of Allegiance during class or advisory". It appeared that most of the class agreed that this is a right protected by the government and the Constitution. The supporters of this statement believe that it is an act of free speech and is at the basis of our Bill of Rights, in the First Amendment. While I do also agree that this act resembles free speech in some sort of way, I personally believe that all students should stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance fully. My reasoning for this is for a few reasons. One reason is that the Pledge represents what being an American citizen is all about. The Pledge of Allegiance is just that; it says that you are proud to be an American and will always treat it at home. We are all citizens of the United States, and people are saying that it is that hard to stand up, look at the red white and blue, and put your hand over your heart? Following the Pledge is a simple way of stating your citizenship proudly and respecting where this nation has been. I know the opposing arguments, but I still believe that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance should be followed by all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion. After all, we all are Americans.

My First Quarter Meta-Blog Post

My blogging has changed dramatically over the past eight weeks. After all, this is my first blog and I am very much a rookie to the world of blogging online. But as the first quarter has progressed, I have noticed some underlying themes and changes in my online writing style.

First off, I have noticed a trend in most of my blog posts. Mainly, I seem to have gravitated towards the political issues that face Americans today. While each blog post does not contain political material, the posts that I have enjoyed writing about the most have involved American politics in a variety of forms. Even when the topic of my blog for that week seemingly does not involve the political sciences, I tend to attempt to make parallels to the political climate today. As the weeks have gone on, and as the number of blog posts have increased, I have also increased my usage of outside materials in my blogs. Instead of going on a tangent that no one could follow, I really have begun to use articles and quotes to keep the reader fully engaged and actively reading. I take account for these changes because I know that these documents will make my blogs more successful and understandable. I have also found that as my blogging has progressed, I am writing even more about events that happen in my own personal experiences. I think that this really helps my posts because it makes my points even more personal and introspective. When I have read my past blogs, I have been very surprised to see my opinion fluctuate so much in my writing. I believe that in the future, I really should ease off on the subjective and opinionated nature because I feel that this can have a negative effect. It forces readers to accept my opinions without any sort of flaws. I really don't want this because it doesn't allow readers to express their own unique and personal viewpoints that would most certainly enhance the discussion and conversation pertaining to that topic.

I personally believe that the blog post that best exemplifies my blogging so far in the first quarter in the one titled "Political 'Connectedness'". Here is the link: http://rennikss.blogspot.com/2010/10/political-connectedness.html

NPR: Truly Public Radio?

Recently this week, National Public Radio has come under serious doubt after the firing of liberal analyst Juan Williams for his comments regarding Muslims on airplanes. Williams was recorded on Fox News saying that he gets nervous when he sees people with Muslim garb on commercial flights. NPR is now under much scrutiny from all political affiliations because they believe that Williams had the right to voice his opinion and that NPR is censoring some very important topics from the media.

From my standpoint, I have to completely agree with these claims. As a regular viewer of Fox News, I have grown extremely fond of Williams because of his passion for the political sciences and his unique background coming from Cuba. Because of this I am shocked about how NPR has decided to handle Williams over this controversial comment. Since National Public Radio is funded by hard-working Americans' capital, and each of these Americans has their own opinions, they should have to conform to certain guidelines to make sure that the our hard-earned money is going to represent all of us fully and completely. So when a highly-respected analyst voices his opinion on an extremely heated topic, a view that I believe many people share, it should be voiced without persecution since this, after all, is our First Amendment. I also strongly believe that Williams' contributions to Fox News, known to be a conservative-minded network, led to his firing. Secondly, I am quite frankly blown away on how National Public Radio CEO Vivian Schiller has handled the situation. Instead of doing something more civilized, like a suspension or a fine, she rushes to her judgement and fires the correspondent. To make matters worse, instead of doing it behind closed doors and in confidentiality, she decides to blast Williams for his opinion while insulting the mentally-ill. It is time for Schiller to be removed from her role, as this incident clearly shows that in the current state of National Public Radio, it truly is not public and the station does not present all viewpoints of controversial issues.

Is the Dictionary Always Correct?

Earlier this month, our AIS teachers boldly declared that the dictionary is an extremely biased source that serves many stereotypes and acts of injustice against a variety of things. While some members in the class seemed stunned at this idea, I, for one, was not surprised at the notion. Every word in the dictionary has an origin of some sort, and this source has to have been heravily influenced by the time period surrounding it. Let's look at one example.
As we discussed connotations and denotations in American Studies this week, one of the terms that was brought up was the phrase "whitewashing". In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it describes whitewashing first as to whiten with whitewash. Most interestingly enough, the second denotation of the phrase is to "deliberately attempt to conceal unpleasant facts about a person or organization". While the first use of the term has been dated back to the 16th century, the alternate usage of whitewash was first heard in the Era of Slavery in the United States. What significance does this have? During slavery, whites were considered superior to others, particularly blacks. So by whitewashing, the wealthy slaveowners would "cover up" the African-American's falts and truths in an attempt to rid them of their "unpleasant" background and assimilate them into American culture. This means the whites are trying to purify, to cleanse these slaves to become peaceful and graceful. I believe also that especially in the mission of the church, priests and missionaries wanted to remove all of the African-Americans' "sinful and dirty" culture and history and replace it with the holiness of white Christian beliefs, to "whitewash" over them. And since at the time, less than 1% of blacks were educated, the writers of the dictionary who coined the term were most certainly white. So this is one example of how the dictionary can be incorrect by using biases that the surrounding culture conveyed at the time.

Political "Connectedness"

This weekend, I was fortunate enough to observe a summit at the White House involving President Obama and a multitude of mayors, governors, and former secretaries of transportation regarding the issue of much-needed revamping and reconstruction of our nation's roads, bridges, and everything in between. Throughout this summit, these officers of high esteem brought up a plethora of great ideas and concepts to create an execution plan in making a new transportation bill. The bill would include a front-loaded $50 billion dollar stimulus, in addition to a 6-year, 12-figure plan aimed in rehabbing our nation's infrastructure to promote much greater efficiently in the United States. This would call for  “nothing less than a fundamental overhaul of America’s transportation policies and programs.”

The only thing stopping this revolutionary bill from going into full effect is great opposition from a variety of sides, especially the Republicans. Now I know the arguments against this resolution: higher taxes, greater spending despite an already substantial federal deficit, and I understand these points. But what amazes me is that the opposite side refuses to see how the long-term benefits greatly outweigh the "problems". Our current and outdated system makes the United States one of the worst efficient countries in the entire world, in terms of traffic flow. Our country already is dead-last as far as percentage of GDP used on transportation. With the new plan, we would be able to create hundreds of thousands of jobs for the unemployed. We would be able to fund new technologically-advanced systems, such as high-speed rail, that are healthy on the environment and allow poorer urban communities to go to places cheaper and faster than ever before. New more effective ports for trading will make America will in the global marketplace, whether importing or exporting.
All of these benefits would be reaped by all Americans, especially those in urban communities.

But due to partisan relationships between parties, most likely, this act will not pass through the congressional stage of the process. First off, it's time America behaves like America; through unities and partnerships on opposing sides, we will be able to do great things. Especially on Capitol Hill, I believe that it is time people think of themselves as Americans. Not as Republicans or Democrats or any other distinctions, but of people who will unite for a common good to make this country better. Secondly, our representatives ought to stop making their elections the paramount issue for them, despite today's rugged political climate. Instead of constantly campaigning for votes, our Congressmen and Congresswomen should start acting in the best interest of the people, despite political affiliation, and as bipartisan leaders that assist our country in the long-term. We know that all of the members on Capitol Hill are highly qualified and are capable of making these crucial decisions for our country. This might be challenging, but after all, it is their job.

Athletic Stereotypes

As I was listening to the radio this weekend, I came across an ad that had two football players call this fan who missed watching their games because he didn't have a cell phone service that allowed him to do so. What I found interesting was that the two players' voices seemed to resemble black players. I began to think about our stereotypes for American athletics and how we portray black athletes.
For sports, especially on the North Shore, we always picture our best American athletes as black. I frequently hear phrases from my fellow classmates about "black hops" and "black speed". I believe that people have made this conclusion because of the supposed majority of African-Americans in mainstream American sports. I do not believe this assumption is fair because it "forces" all African-Americans under this notion that they are athletic and if do not have this trait, you are not of your race. So if you happen to not be naturally gifted at basketball, you do not follow your race and you are an oddity. I believe that this has to stop for a few reasons. One reason is that this stereotype limits the view for blacks because it makes them seem like they cannot do anything besides sports, that they are not as intelligent as some other races. Like in the video, African-Americans can do both athletics and academics. Also, it gives off the illusion that other races, such as whites and Hispanics, cannot participate in athletics as well as blacks. This needs to be changed now.

Racial Discrepancies

This week in American Studies, we discussed the "Peculiar Institution". This is used as a euphemism for social and economic repercussions of slavery in the South in America. As we talked about this, we began to wonder about racial discrepancies that our society has today. Some discrepancies that minorities face, especially African-Americans, include environments like the workplace and in the social hierarchy.While there are many possible origins to this issue, I personally believe that these have been caused by the after-effects of slavery and Jim Crow laws.
The reason I believe that slavery is the cause is because American society has yet to fully emerge from racial stereotypes and from slavery. After slavery was abolished during the Civil War, the African-American slaves were released from the South and the entire country. But despite this, lives for these former slaves barely improved and in some cases, got worse. African-Americans as a whole have never had the ability to recover from slavery and have been "stuck" near the lower and middle classes. One reason that accounts for this truth is with Jim Crow Laws. These laws basically prohibited African-American improvement in the social classes and at work.

The State of Journalism

Last week in American Studies, we talked about where we get our information from. As people born in the internet age, most of the class agreed that we received our news from larger markets online through email rather than through newspapers. The problems with this is that these corporations "filter" the news that they give you. If they don't want the reader to see something, they simple don't show it. We also realized that these websites do not go into enough depth to reach certain conclusions.

This discussion got me thinking on the current state of journalism today. As our American society modernizes over time, it appears on the surface that the role of journalists is being reduced by the day. But if you look closer, you will realize that newspaper writers are as important as ever. With the influx of information on the web, the presence of opinionated people and bloggers has increased exponentially. But unlike bloggers and certain online news source writers, who are to give their own biased and original opinion on a subject, journalists have an obligation to their readers to give them the factual information without their own personal spin. With as few journalists today, and as many strong-willed bloggers, journalists must give their readers the information. It is easy to have an online source mislead you into the truth. It is the journalist's responsibility (as well as the corporation's) to continue to write the news.

A Change in Perspectives

Earlier this week, the current Mayor of Chicago, Richard M. Daley, announced his decision to forgo another attempt at a term beginning in 2011. He cited his and his family's desire to begin a "new phase of our lives". Daley's legacy will be remembered as a period of time where Chicago refined its areas physically and economically to benefit the entire city.

While I do believe that his announcement was surprising, what I found shocking were the comments of Chicagoans about the Mayor's decision, especially by high-ranking officials and critics. According to a CBS poll, the reaction towards Daley's announcement was very mixed. Some believe that Daley is one of Chicago's greatest leaders, while others say that his legacy will be based upon many controversial issues. Despite many critical responses from the general public, the figures of most prominence in the city are praising of his duty. His greatest critics over the years, ones that questioned his economic decision-making among other topics, were swift to respond to Daley's decision with the utmost acclaim. At first, this stunned me, because I believed that they would point out the Mayor's faults in front of a larger audience. But then I connected this "change in perceptions" to one we talked about in class a week ago, that for positions in politics, a candidate is always campaigning for votes.

Alderman Edward Burke later stated that "all you wanna-be mayors, I guess you better run out and get your petitions." This quote perfectly sums up the stances of many of Daley's critics. They realize that in order to run for this position, they must garner votes effectively. Admiring and appreciating the successor is a very proficient way to gain the respect of the public. While is might seem superficial, especially coming from his opposition in the past, it is paramount to get the public's votes during the election. While over a year away, these state officials know that every solitary comment or move has broader implications towards the future.

Is Anything Really Original?

As I was receiving my daily dose of SportsCenter earlier this week, an advertisement about a new Apple product came on the screen. The company heralded the new iPad as a revolutionary and innovative device that was completely original. That word "original" really made me think long after the commercial was over. I concluded that Apple's product was in fact not original and that it was just built upon a foundation previously set up. Soon after, I attempted to name one thing-simply one thing- that was utterly authentic. This begged the question: is anything really original?

After searching through magazine and televisions ads proclaiming new innovations, I could not find one modern-day thing that I considered completely original. Everything simply added-on to something previous. Next, I attempted to trace the origins of certain devices to one original thought from the past. This was impossible, as there seemed to be multiple ways that these products have evolved. This connects very well to our discussion in American Studies earlier this week about the importance of collaboration between people. The reason that American society progresses through time is through the combination of different ideas and thoughts. Through this process of collaboration we are able to create new and interesting things that are beneficial. Whether a children's toy or  a religious ideology, these things have to be created with support from the past. Without collaboration, it is very hard to provide our society with something that it would find useful because it would have no basis for successes and failures.