http://www.horatioalger.com/index.cfm

The Horatio Alger Association is a non-profit organisation set up in 1947 in order to re-establish the American public's faith in the American dream. They chose to use Horatio Alger Jr's name because of the strong message that his stories put across to his readers, the message that with hard work and integrity, anybody can go from a humble background to great success. The Horatio Alger Association also have an award they call the 'Horatio Alger Award' which they give out to men and women who they believe have achieved success through "honesty, hard work, self-reliance and perseverance over adversity". They also believe these people must be willing to help those less fortunate than themselves. They are carrying on the message put forward in Ragged Dick, the idea that by being like Ragged Dick, even a poor shoe shiner can make something of his life and become a respectable member of society. Which is exactly what the American Dream is. The videos on the websites homepage show various men and women who have already achieved their vision of the American dream, and are presumably there to inspire young entrepreneurs to live their life in the same way. All of the members shown on the website have come from poor, often immigrant families and have worked their way out of poverty to very important places in America.

Gun Control

http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/

Pro-Guns

This website is in favour of the 2nd amendment and guns, and strangely protecting the original constitution and its values rather than protecting human life. Interestingly there is a link to the tea party, anti Obama images, and has pictures of pink guns signifying that it is indeed a female website. The idea of women and guns has become a very popular one in the last few years, and this can be seen through this website. On the website there are many links to other sites, and many articles written on the subject of the 2nd amendment. The mission statement and the language it uses is quite tough, serious and aggressive. This can be seen with many other pro-gun sites, all of which seem to have a certain idea that defending the 2nd
Amendment is some sort of war. As I already mentioned, the site is affiliated with the Tea Party, and their ideas of defending the original constitution are quite similar.


Anti-Guns

The anti-gun website I have chosen is closely affiliated with the very influential Brady Campaign, and is called the Million Mom March. The original MMM took place in 2000, and was in protest of the ease of purchasing guns and ammunition in America, with particular attention paid to keeping guns away from minors. Interesting the original website for the march has since been taken over by the Brady Campaign, and now when one tries to access the MMM.org site it immediately redirects to the Brady campaign site. The Brady Campaign is not opposed to the ownership of guns but to the selling of guns to just anyone, and it campaigns for much tougher restrictions. This is a view I share, I believe that if it is absolutely necessary to have possession then so be it but only in the hands of someone who has a legitimate license.


The main differences I have found between the sites are the difference in ideals- the pro gun community all seem to discuss the effect of taking away guns as though it is an affront to the original constitution, whereas groups such as the Brady Campaign and the Million Mom March are more concerned with the human effects of guns in local communities, and the effects it has on children.

Pro and Anti gun control

Pro- gun control

http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/

This website is pro- gun control by the Brady campaign. The Brady campaign’s aim is to prevent gun violence and to make sure Americans feel safe. They believe this can be done by restricting who can own a gun as they believe that preventing the dangerous, mentally ill and convicted criminals will reduce the amount of people effected by gun violence. They don't aim to stop everyone from owning a gun, they want to stop people who are most likely to misuse a gun from owning a gun. 

On the Brady campaign's website they have a count of the amount of people who have been shot in America this year as well as how many people have been shot today. At the point of writing this 174 people have been shot in America so far and 98272 people have died this year. This alone is an argument for gun control because of the sheer amount of people who have been injured or killed because of a gun. 

Anti-gun control

http://gunowners.org/protect.htm

This website is from the Gun Owners of America. Their argument is that any control on who can own a gun goes against the second amendment of the US constitution which states that everyone has the right to keep and bear arms. They also argue that it to prevent someone from owning a gun will impede on someone's freedom.

Both websites argue strongly for their case, however the Gun Owners of America focus more on what can be done, what has been done and what anti-gun control supporters can do rather than attempting to persuade someone that gun control is wrong. The Brady campaign seems out more to persuade people and use some powerful statistics regarding deaths as a result of guns, for example, they give a list of different countries and the amount of people who were killed in one year by guns in each country. America had nearly 9,500 deaths in one year, and this is compared to Finland with only 17 deaths and Australia with only 35.

I find the pro-gun control website more convincing because they give facts and figures as to why America should have gun control. However, as a non-American the argument of the Gun Owners of America that it goes against the second amendment doesn't effect me but it may convince many Americans who agree with the bill of rights.

For the side of anti-gun control, I have chosen this video, made by a group calling themselves "The Patriotic Resistance".

http://www.resistnet.com/ They describe their website as a social network "where citizens can resist". Under their goals they state they are "opposing the rising tide of socialism". The clear message of this video is that by not allowing ordinary citizens of America to own a gun, the government is giving a helping hand to criminals and aiding them in carrying out crime without fear of people defending themselves. However the video is done in the style of a pro-gun control campaign, from the point of view of a criminal. I do think this is a good advert for anti-gun control, and it is a valid argument because of course banning guns, especially in a country the size of America and with so many guns already in circulation, would not necessarily stop them being used, it would just stop them being used by those who abide by the law. Though on the other hand, preventing violent crime simply by making sure everybody has a gun is a very simple and flawed solution.

For the side of pro-gun control, I have chosen this video;

I found this to be a very good and powerful advert. It is extremely simple in its message, yet it leaves a very strong impression. The argument used so often by gun enthusiasts is that a gun never killed anybody only the person who's holding it has. I think this short clip challenges that idea very well. It reminds anybody who watches it that, although guns can be used responsibly, they are still extremely dangerous, and the incredible power of them is so easily used for a person's own selfishness. This video shows the destructive power of guns, and I think reminds people that they are not comparable to a common tool, they are purely made for the purpose of killing.

Pro and Anti Gun Control websites

Pro Gun Control-

"'Mayors Against Illegal Guns' is a coalition of more than 500 mayors from big cities and small towns who are dedicated to advancing policies at the national, state, and local levels that prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns." The coalition has produced the video below- found on youtube, advocating that background checks need done at gun shows- preventing criminals from purchasing guns:



It is true that both boys involved in the Columbine shootings had criminal records, however it is known that most- if not all, of the guns used were bought legally by others for the boys. The video is professional and to the point, targeting its audience through the emotional reminder of the Columbine High School Massacre. It is easy to understand ('logical') why background checks on gun purchases are important, and easy to sympathise with this view. However the counter argument is that no rational minded criminal would bother going to a gun shop to purchase guns- though they might if they knew for certain- at say a gun show, that they definately wouldn't be checked. 'Closing the loophole' would end that.

Anti Gun Control-

This video is a response to the video above, made by the 'National Association for Gun Rights':





The video focuses on the fact idea that if the 'Gun show loophole' was closed by what would be a major gun-control legislation, a 'domino effect' of further gun control legislation and bans would follow. I don't think the argument is very convincing, it seems too unlikely that the government would or could 'shut down all private sales'.

The advert hinges on an (unrealistic) fear, and then spends the last minute of the video asking for money and contributions towards the cause- which seems to 'cheapen' and take away the genuine-concern element of the message. Those in favour of the possession of legal guns usually support the idea of checks to ensure that only legal citizens can own them, however it does contradict the ideas of 'freedom'. This organisation clearly does not want the government involved in any kind of gun regulation, and doesn't see the benefit of background checks.


An interesting site on gun control: http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/
which explores the relationship between women and guns. Like many other anti-gun control websites it uses the 2nd amendment as a justification of the views represented. The group is extreme- it is in favour of no control what so ever: "AFA has taken a NO-COMPROMISE position by calling for the repeal of ALL gun laws back to and including the National Firearms Act of 1934". What makes it convincing is that one of the main members lost a son to gun violence, (http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/afanews/joey.htm) and yet she still supports de-regulation: "My son was the victim of an evil heart and a demented mind; he is not a poster boy for “gun control”. Gun control advocates have successfully diverted the focus from the vicious perpetrator- to the gun. A killer took my son’s life, not a gun!". The womans experience makes the beliefs seem more justified and rational. In the UK the closest issue we have to gun-crime is knife-crime, yet every one keeps kitchen knives at home in an unlocked draw, we don't pick up a knife and instantly think of using it to kill. If desired, almost any object can be used as a weapon. The argument that the gun itself is not the problem is a rational and understandable argument.

Gun Control websites

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

Above is the website for the Brady campaign, which is “devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities”. It is named after Jim Brady who is partially paralysed as a result of a gunshot wound to the head which he received on March 30 1981.

The website is full of facts about guns in America and even includes a counter in the top right hand corner of every page showing how many people have been shot that day in America and in the entire year. This makes sure that visitors to the site understand the damage that the weapons are causing in America. The blogs and links which the site contains means that there is no lack of information on the gun problems America has, which would make it hard for any pro gun campaigner visiting the site not to think strongly about the idea of gun control.
To conclude the site makes the idea of gun control very convincing, as a result of all the evidence and information it has, and after looking at this website, I found it hard to think why anyone would be anti-gun control in the United States.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/

"KeepAndBearArms.com is a grassroots movement of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is a call to action, a call for self-education, and a 21 gun salute to the many good men and women who fought and died to bring America into being. This web site is about helping lawful people maintain their abilities to protect themselves and the people they love effectively from anyone who would do them harm - through legal, private ownership and use of guns. We also stand for the repealing of all gun laws which infringe on the civil rights of peaceable women and men to defend their own lives and property."

The text above was taken from the “about us” page, I also read on the website that their aim after preserving America’s right to keep guns will be to then help the entire world defeat gun control, which shows that the people who run the website may not fully understand the differences between the views of America, and the views of other countries on the topic of guns.

Similar to the Brady campaign website, this website contains information supporting their point of view, however although some of the documents are genuine articles from newspapers in America etc, a lot of the sources which keepandbeararms.com contains seems to be documents which other “gun nuts” have written, which although do support the websites view, are not official like the Brady Campaign information, and do not take into account the point of view of pro gun control campaigners which could harm the respectability of the site.

Although this site does help support those who are anti-gun control in America, they lack the official facts or documents which would help their cause, and the fact that they refer to pro gun control campaigners as “misguided” and “gun grabbers” shows that they don’t take an opposing point of view seriously therefore I find the Bradycampaign.org to be more convincing. However I feel that if the people who own keepandbeararms.com did more research into the gun control topic and made their site look more professional it would help produce a stronger argument.

Pro and Anti Gun Control

Surveys on the gun control issue depend on truthful answers and cautious interpretation of the results. The site Just Facts http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp gives extensive statistics on the subject. There are three types of guns reported on; handguns, rifles and shotguns. There are 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States in 2010. A third of these are handguns. Ownership is mainly by white males, half of whom are Republicans, with Democrats and Independents owning approximately 25% each. Owners stated that they used the gun for hunting (approx 30%) or for protection against crime or for target shooting (approx 70%). 16,272 murders were committed in the US during 2008 - 67% of which were committed with firearms.

From the Anti Gun Control lobby
The following is a video made by the NRA singing out their message of using the Constitution to reiterate the rights within it with regard to liberty, the right to bear arms and identifying their opponents. They warn against the possibility of their right to own guns being taken away and the urgent need to get on board with them to fight it.



From the Pro Gun Control campaigners.
Here is a second video by a survivor of the Virginia Tech shooting, pushing for the importance of background checks to keep America safe. He travelled round to gun shows in Dayton Ohio, Forest Lake MN, Richmond Virginia and San Antonio, Texas to illustrate how easy it is to purchase firearms.



The common sense attitude of the pro gun control video is compelling, but coming to grips with how passionate the gun owning fraternity obviously is about their rights under the Constitution to own firearms, some empathy emerges for their cause. The perfect solution would be restrictions which calmed the fears of those who feel the widespread ownership of guns is very dangerous coupled with a recognition of the feelings of the gun owners and some assurance to them that they were not going to be denied gun ownership across the board. It is hard to be against some degree of concern.

Jill Glazier

This video is from a moderate republican who believes the extremist tea party members are hurting the republican party's chances of appealing to swing voters and winning back the house of representitive in the November mid term election. He is also critical of the tea party and what they stand for, or rather that they haven't outlined what they stand for. He believes that the tea party are hiding under the guise of the tea party to push special interests. He states that there is a rift among the republican party over the tea party and feels moderate republicans are being pushed out by the extremist tea party members.

This is interesting as the criticism is coming from a republican rather than a democrate. He mentions the republican candidates are fearful of criticising the tea party through fear of criticising their fan base and gives an example that moderate republicans have been dodging questions on the tea party.

The video I have chosen is of an up and coming documentary film made about the rise of the Tea Party movement in 2009. It is clearly made by Tea Party supporters and seems as if it is going to be very much in their favour. The trailer shows us images of men in very patriotic, war of independence uniforms. It seems very American in the Hollywood style of making everything look very exciting, fast paced and action packed. It seems to purposefully give the impression that the Tea Party members which it follows are the hero's of the film, fighting to save the world from the evil Obama administration. The character who seems to be focused on the most is a man from Detroit named Nate. It says on the films website that he is "risking the anger of family and friends by joining the march against a President’s policies that would victimize the very people he loves the most." Making him seem very heroic, and also i think playing on the fact that he is black, in order to appeal to the African American community who support Obama. Basically it would be very interesting to watch this film, but it seems as if it is very much a product of Tea Party propaganda, and would most likely give a very one sided view on the issue.

Tea Party

I have chosen to write how the video gives voice to the Tea Party, from an interview by Jim Demint.
He is one of the Senate’s most conservative members, and is the junior U.S Senator from South Carolina. His political action committee, Senate Conservatives Fund, backs 11 Senate Republican challengers.

In the video DeMint states that the tea party movement is the “most positive thing to happen to this country in a while.”
"I think the tea party movement is much more than a political party and it certainly shouldn't join any political party," he told moderator John Dickerson from the Conservative Political Action Committee conference in Washington.

DeMint believes that successive US administrations may have been slowly undermining the Constitution and slated Obama for not making health care more available for everyone. DeMint makes a point of underlining the fact that Obama is asking too much from the federal government, and that the courses of action Obama has proposed are just asking too much.

He criticizes Obama because he likens Obama politics to the sort of politics that have failed in socialist countries round the world. He highlights hard working Americans who are against the democrats and that America must stop this slide into socialism; the American people aren’t generally socialists. DeMint wants to see the American people come out onto the street to express their concern over the mass of problems that have left the government in a mess. He wants them to work together to reduce debt, stop the borrowing crisis and other economic problems caused by the government and big businesses. The voice of the tea party is the people taking back their country.

What Obama is doing to America; DeMint believes may even be a threat to the constitution. The Constitution provides a common ground for the American people, without it there is nothing to bind the American people together. Obama and his government are going outside this with policies like their economic stimulus and taking over the health care which are much more geared to a socialist agenda and surely not the American way. He also doesn’t believe that Obama is capable of delivering the health care reforms anyway.

He stresses that The Tea Party is more than just a political party, it is the people of America demanding accountability of the government and elected candidates. It must take back the government for the people.

The Calvert Eagle Tea Party Commercial 2009

This highly romanticised patriotic Tea Party video of American history interestingly leaves out any images from the nineteenth century. The background music is very stirring.
Had trouble embedding this first time round so couldn't resist getting it onto the blog!

Jill Glazier

This is hilarious. A change to watch a cartoon.

Jill Glazier

Tea Party video

I found this video interesting as it discusses how the Tea Party would be viewed and treated if they were black. It is taken from a Russian news channel and suggests that the Tea Party are only being allowed to portray their views and take part in rallies without fear of physical retaliation because they are mostly white and that groups such as the Black Panther or the civil rights movement were feared and attacked even though they took part in peaceful marches. At the beginning of the video it focuses on the words of a Tea Party supporter who stated that it was the “first time ordinary Americans have stood up for their rights since the civil war.” Discounting the civil rights movement which were black Americans standing up for their rights.Although the people in the video never say that the Tea Party is a racist movement, they say that as the Tea Party is mostly made up of White people they are not viewed as a threat and are treated differently than if a group of Black or Latino Americans were attempting to do a similar thing.

Overall this video criticises the Tea Party mostly on the point that they are only getting support and becoming widespread across America because it is made up of mostly white people and that their views are not being taken into account. The fact that some supporters are racist is also targeted, this is as a result of claims by many that “Obama should go back to Kenya.” Finally the video also criticises the party by stating the supporters don’t understand what the party means or stands for. This is shown in the video by the statement that the Tea Party supporters ““have no idea what they are talking about” and that they are angry just because “people have told them that they should be angry but without knowing the reasons why”.

The Tea Party Movement is for 'dummies'- literally!

Criticism of the Tea Party Movement:

This video is a criticism of the Tea Party Movement, by a a group called 'Mock the Dummy'. I can't find out much about who is 'officially' behind it, they claim their purpose is to "combat idiocy with satire". They offer puppet videos that criticise the Tea Party movement predominantly, and some general Republican criticisms. The video below is about how the organisation is not really a 'grass roots movement' along with several other criticisms.




In summary, the criticisms are as followed:

The Tea Party Movement (TPM) is afraid- represented through their hiding in an underground nuclear bunker. They are quite literally dummies, who believe in Armageddon... 'any day now the messiah will come', believe Obama is the 'most radical president in history', fear Socialism and Healthcare for All. The video mocks sarcastically the idea that the TPM is a Grass roots movement, 'Not a professionally organised PR effort... founded by king media group'. The video portrays the movement as dumb, with Americans 'coming out to show their creativity' (showing a shirt written with 'say no to socilism' (socialism spelt wrong). A recurring mock of the party is their inability to spell! They are represented as homophobic: 'Ahh, I'm infected by the gay agenda' & as believing that Obama is a 'Muslim terrorist with no birth certificate, who plans to take your guns, put you in internment camp, and rape your sons and daughters'

The general/overall theme is that the movement is literally 'dumb' and the followers are unrealistically afraid. They are presented as very right-wing: fearing socialism and healthcare reforms, embracing homophobia and christianity,and supporting lack of gun control. Other videos by the group are equaly as full of satire, 'How to Recruit Dummies for your Tea Party or Suicide Mission' compares them to Al Queda & terrorists, 'Why Dummies Want to Forget the Tea Party Ancestry' compares the movement to Confererate Slave owners, The Klu Klux Klan, Anti-civil rights protesters/those against desegregation and those against African Americans Voting.

I think you get the jist! All the videos are really funny, but they do a good job of not just poking fun, but pointing out flaws and extreme views in the 'Tea Party Message'.

Links to some of the other videos below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMs6-YeUQMM&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiaI63pBmLs&feature=channel

International View of The Tea Party

How do these countries see the Tea Party Movement in the United States?

From the report by Elizabeth Dickinson, Joshua E Keating - October 26 2010

China

Pakistan

Germany

France

Spain and the Spanish speaking World

Different countries have varying responses to the growth of the Tea Party Movement depending on the relationship they have with the United States.

China see the movement as leading to a US -China conflict - "polarising groundswell" and sees it as the "US's inability to find political solutions" "to economic recovery." China Daily states, "China's greatest danger is that US policymakers face economic and national security crises they cannot solve."

Pakistan media describe the Tea Party as being synonomous with anti-Islam backlashes, particularly over the Ground Zero mosque issue and the proposed burning of the Quran in Florida. They call Glenn Beck a rabble rouser and equate the actions and ideals of the movement as equating with America's treatment of Black Americans and Native Americans, in the past.

Germany. The German media write that for the first time since the Depression in the 1930s, questions are being raised about the success of the American model. They note Beck's warnings of socialism and his allusions to Hitler and Stalin and perceive fears of European style socialism as a threat to their privileged positions. The more success Obama has (with healthcare reforms), they suggest, the angrier the protests will become.

France. The French media observe that the Tea Party wish to be left alone and to live as they did before there was opposition to Uncle Sam. Calling them typically white and 'ok' financially, Le Monde commented that their rallies feed rumours of Obama's secret Muslim faith and supposed lack of a US birth certificate.

Spain and the Spanish -Speaking World

Argentinian press see Delaware's Christine O'Donnell as uneducated and having a controvercial past, so much so that they couldn't imagine how she could be capable of unseating the Republican incumbent. The Spanish media were alarmed and El Pais remarked that they didn't know if they felt "profound horror or more profound pity." O'Donnell was subsequently unsuccessful in the election.

Back in America, HuffPost's Howard Fineman appeared on the Today show after the election. He said that the Tea Party's success might mean trouble for the Republican leaders. "The story now" he said "is going to be whether the Republican leadership.....Can take the power of the Tea Party without having the tea party drive them off a cliff."

Jill Glazier

Rudy Moise campaign video:

This is one of the wierdest/most painful videos I've come accross:





Rudy Moise was a Democrat congress candidate for Florida, he came 2nd in the elections. The video above is awful! But interesting in its style- Moise is a Haitian-American & the video (though it claims he will represent 'everyone') represents minority groups predominantly. The music video style reflects that he is targeting young Americans who like rap-style music, there is a focus on him as a representitive of the black/hispanic community, and in many of his speechs/campaign work he has compared himself to Obama. The auto-tuning of voices is clearly an attempt to make it sound like more of a catchy song, but its so annoying! Moise is a rich candidate, with an estimated 10x more money that the other candidates for Congress in his district of Florida. He's an interesting candidate, hes a doctor, with his own clinic, served in the airforce & been in movies- this campaign ad clearly being his best yet. The discussed idea that these ads are played over and over during commercials drumming messages in works well with this video- the literal repetition of his name means that those who go to vote & are unsure of which candidate to pick will have atleast remembered his name, but it wasn't quite enough!

Tim James- 2010 mid term elections campaign video.

Tim James was the republican candidate who ran in the 2010 mid term elections for Alabama and came third. The advert seems quiet short and only covers a single subject which is the use of 12 different languages on the drivers licence exams, and he states if he is made governor then he will make sure the test is only available in English. I don’t think the campaign advert helps him very much because there are probably more important things going on in Alabama than what language a drivers test is in.  The style of the advert seems very personal as you can assume he is walking through his own house for the advert. He is also the main focus of the advert with nothing else to distract the audience. At the very end James looks down from the camera and straight back to the camera. It looks as though he is trying to show a more personal side of him at the very end with a little bit of emotion. 

Sorry for the length of the video I have chosen, but I thought it was worth it. The video is a campaign advert for Chuck DeVore, who ran against Barbara Boxer in the Republican Primary for the Senator in California. He lost, coming third with only 19.3% of the vote. I find this video very interesting, mainly because of its sheer ridiculousness. I think all the parts about his military life are true but I’m not sure. The fact that he has chosen to base his campaign on the slogan “what would Jack (Bauer) do?” is so absurd. Jack Bauer is a fictional character from the T.V series “24”. In which he repeatedly, singlehandedly saves the world from various different terrorists within the space of 24 hours, using often very extreme methods. He is clearly trying to appeal to the far right voters, assuming that if Jack Bauer were a real person, he would be very right wing. To be honest Jack Bauer probably would vote for him, but the fact that he believes the people of California will see this as reason enough to vote for him puts his fate in the popularity of a T.V show. The policies he puts forward are very vague, and seem to be more just doing the opposite of Barabara Boxer, rather than thinking of any himself. Other reasons he states to vote for him are the fact that he likes Guantanamo bay, he mows his own lawn and he is good at throwing hand grenades. I can’t help but think that if he had spent more time explaining some of his policies he may have done far better. Also the heavy rock guitar riffs that are played over the advert just go to add to DeVore’s image as the all American tough guy, again appealing to the more radical voters out there. Although I guess for a state which elected the Terminator himself it’s clearly not a bad image to go for.

Linda McMahon Campaign ad for the Connecticut Senate seat 2010

Linda McMahon is a Republican who ran against the Democrat Richard Blumenthal for the Connecticut Senate seat in 2010

I found this campaign video interesting as it didn’t put forward any of the views Linda McMahon has, instead it seems to be created just to discredit her opponent. It shows two women talking during a car journey, about how both candidates said that they wouldn’t take any money from special interests, yet Linda McMahon was true to her word but her opponent apparently lied and did take money although the advert shows no proof that he did. The ending is particularly interesting as it shows one of the women sarcastically saying that she was shocked that Richard Blumenthal lied and the other woman jokingly saying that she knew that she would be. This is to try and convince voters that he is a serial liar as opposed to Linda McMahon who is “true to her word.”The fact that there is no mention of Linda’s policies means that this advert isn’t focused on getting people to vote for Linda specifically, it is just trying to stop people voting for her opponent. The style of the advert seems almost childish, and makes it feel that Linda McMahon doesn’t think she can beat Richard Blumenthal on policies and instead will try and attack his character. This is a very different type of advert to what we are used to seeing in British politics.

Linda McMahon got only 43% of the vote compared to Richard Blumenthal’s 55%

Rand Paul - 2010 election

Apologies - my first link doesn't want to work, so here's another site

http://abcnewsgo.com/ThisWeek/rand-paul-long-budget-cuts-short-specifics/story?/id=12079618

his interview is with Christine Amanpour who asked Mr Paul to give her a specific cut he would advocate. He replied that he would make them across the board. She suggested that he couldn't just keep sayin they would be across the board. He assured her that he could and that he was going to look at every program. He would freeze federal hiring and perhaps reduce the number of federal employees by 10% and also reduce the remaining government employees' wages by 10%.




Jill Glazier

Campaign video, Rand Paul, Kentucky

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/07/randpaulcutbudgetallacrosstheboard.html

ABC News reporting
Republican Rand Paul won the seat as Senator of Kentucky against the Democrat candidate Jack Conway. Mr Paul (a Tea Party leader) said that he would look to make cuts in government spending and reduce the borrowing from China. The commentator asked him about the big government deficit. The Senator said raising taxes was not the way. He classed himself as a reasonable nice sort of guy and talked of wanting to work with President Obama.

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/nkypolitics/2010/11/08/column-kentucky-democrats-face-tough-ti

Reporter Amanda Van Benschoten of the Kentucky and Cincinnati Enquirer said that when Rand Paul and his team arrived at the airport in Kentucky, there were about fifty people waiting to greet him, whereas when the Democratic candidate Jack Conway and his people arrived about four hours later, there were only six supporters there. She said the Democratic party was almost non-existent in the US Senate race, and commented that the contrast in numbers of supporters at the airport told you everything you needed to know about the state of the Democratic party in Kentucky - that they were demoralised and disorganised.

Jill Glazier

US campaign

The campaign advert I have chosen is aired on behalf of Harry Reid, the Democratic candidate in the US Senate election for the state of Nevada which took place on November 2, 2010. Reid had won four terms already and was seeking a fifth term. He was up against the Republican candidate for the post, one of the most popular and out spoken nominees of the Tea Party, Sharron Angle. Most political commentators thought Angle would win and achieve a historic victory for the emerging Tea Party but Reid surprised a lot of people and held on to his seat. The results for the Democrats were 50.6% and for the Republicans 44.6%.
I think this campaign advert helped him win for the following reasons: it is short, simple, and to the point because it reminds the voters in Nevada what he has achieved for them while he has been their senator.
It is titled the ‘Right Direction’ and tells Nevadans that he will continue to take Nevada in the right direction. There is a quiet but confident tone that aims to reassure the voters. He focuses on keeping Nevada’s leading position in providing clean and green energy for the state and for the country. He notes Nevada has everything it needs to lead in alternative energy because of its geographical position; it is well placed to provide solar power (Nevada is very hot) and energy & resources from its underground heat reserves and water resource from rivers (Colorado River) etc. He stresses that this energy also fuels Nevada jobs, which is so important in the recession; he promises that 41,000 energy related jobs will be created.
The advert underlines that Harry Reid has been personally responsible for programs and investment that have brought money into the state to develop energy and he has lobbied in the senate to fast track key programs that have benefited the people who he has wanted to vote for him. He has also brought in millions of dollars of tax credits to further encourage investment to bring prosperity and business for the people of his state. He demonstrates that he has a safe pair of hands that will continue to bring prosperity to Nevada. The advert says success and it is also quietly patriotic.
The tagline of the advert “determination makes a difference” is message is he believes Nevadans will want to hear and it concludes his softly spoken but confident sales pitch.

Please note that because we have had to juggle the weeks in the module schedule, week 7's task is as follows:

Find, post and comment on any recent US campaign video made by a candidate in the 2008 or 2010 elections. Your first choice should not be Obama or McCain - try to find a campaign video in support of a Senator or a Congressman. They do not have to be the winner, but make sure you know what the result was. Also make sure you comment both on its content and on its style.

If you don't know how to embed Youtube videos, now is the time to learn. If you look under any video you will see a bar which includes the word "Embed". Click on it and it will highlight a code which you can then copy and paste into your blog post. The video should then appear directly in your post - no link required. Try it.

http://www.newblackpanther.org/

I have chosen the website of a group calling themselves the “new black panthers”. They were started in 1989 and are now run by a man called Dr. Malik Zulu Shabazz. They claim to be carrying on the work of the original ‘Black Panthers’, “The New Black Panther Party understands that the organizing tactics and strategies of the Black Panther Party were relevant and revolutionary and can be applied in the 21st Century to great success in our community”, “With the rise of the Tea Party, the white-right and other racist forces. With gun sales nationwide at an all time high amongst whites, with a mood that is more anti-Black than any time recent, it is imperative that we organize our forces, pool our resources and prepare for war!” He seems to openly favour the militancy of the original black panthers, or of Malcolm X. There have been various allegations in the American media that the new black panthers allegedly intimidated voters at a polling station in Philadelphia using batons, and preventing them from voting. The new black panthers deny that they stopped, or attempted to stop anyone from voting. Yet it seems the American media seems to be trying very hard to discredit this group. Quotes from American websites describe Dr. Shabazz as a “radical, anti-Semitic, and racist”. However, on an interview in this website; http://www.nathanielturner.com/malikzulushabazznewblackpantherchairman.htm

Which is a website for African American art and literature, he is described as a “freedom fighter/activist/attorney”. I find it interesting that the civil rights movement is still going on 50 years later, and clearly people such as the new black panthers think they have much more still to fight for. The question is whether the tactics of the black panthers are still relevant today. It’s clear from this interview on Fox news that they think not; http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/07/12/live-on-fox-geraldo-rivera-takes-apart-malik-zulu-shabazz/

Even the surviving members of the original Black Panther party condemn the new Black Panther party, saying they have no claim on the party’s name, and saying that they “denigrate the Party's name by promoting concepts absolutely counter to the revolutionary principles on which the Party was founded.” http://www.blackpanther.org/newsalert.htm Although they do state that they believe African Americans to be in a worse position now, than they were when the party was originally formed in 1966.

The 'other' In America: Vietnam war vetrans

http://www.vietvet.org/bitter.pdf

Above is a link to an article written by Dennis J. Stauffer, a Vietnam veteran, about the Washington DC memorial to the war, which he feels is the deserved 'homecoming' veterans never received:


"I left Vietnam nearly 14 year sago and tried to put that phase of my life behind. I kept my experiences private, as did many Vietnam veterans, to avoid the pain of that war. I also kept quiet because the war was not a welcome topic outside the walls of veterans clubs. The Viet vet became a scapegoat for our country’s involvement in an unpopular war. We faced rejection and verbal, sometimes physical assault. That’s why many veterans quickly discarded their uniforms after returning home; it was easier than facing humiliation in public places.

Last month, Vietnam live again for me and for thousands of Viet vets with the dedication of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C. I learned about the memorial over a year ago and knew immediately I had to participate in its dedication, if for no other reason than to fill a void left by the Vietnam War. It touched my life and me generation deeply. Of the four male children on our fatherless family (my father died while still a comparatively young man), three of us were of age during the Vietnam Era.

Two of us had tours of duty in Vietnam. I returned home alive. My brother did not. Also, both of my sister’s husbands saw duty in Vietnam. Consequently, I felt a vested interest in that black granite wall being built in the city of monuments. But there was a stronger reason compelling me to make this journey. It was to be a homecoming long denied veterans of the black period in our nations history."

The account above reflects upon how Veterans from the Vietnam war were mistreated when they returned home in the 60's and 70's. Public discontent with the war was taken out upon the Veterans, deemed to doing the governments 'dirty work'. Horror stories of Vietnamese civilians mistreatment and rape, as well as the widely publicised My Lai Massacre fulled the general public snub of the veterans. As Stauffer explains, Veterans became a 'scapegoat' and faced 'rejection', which led to homelessness, serve mental illnesses- such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and suicide. Veterans have been seen as 'outside the ideological norm of the mainstream' because of their involvement with war, but also because of their physical and mental health issues.

This is not an issue that only relates to Vietnam veterans, in 2007 it was estimated that 1/4 of those homeless were veterans. There has been rejection of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, and the government has been criticised for not giving enough financial aid to those who have returned home mentally or physically disabled/harmed. The Journal of the American Medical Association claims 1/3 of Iraq veterans have needed mental health treatment. Members of society with disability or mental illnesses are stigmatised and seen as 'other' to many, and so many veterans are ostracised for reasons besides their service.

Mass American society feels the need to place blame on war and violence, as it is 'un-American'. If it is not the government that is blamed, it is usually some type of 'other' or subculture: The Columbine massacre, blame was placed on goth-culture; Muslims, Jews and 'other' [non Christan] religions have been blamed for the rise of terrorism etc. It seems as though some members of American society feel the veterans personally are to blame for the war, however it is more a lack of support from the government than the public that veterans today face. Vietnam veterans today are widely accepted and respected now that the impact and sensitivity of the war has died down, however the future of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans is yet to be seen.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/38658.php
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-07-homeless-veterans_N.htm

Classed as "others" - Women in Society

http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/gender.html


The website I have chosen to discuss is the Trinity University site in San Antonio, Texas which analyses gender through history, education, family, media, and work.

The website notes that a woman’s role within society is influenced by a diversity of factors. These factors range from culture, religion, region, living values and experiences. Women have found it difficult to find their place in the world, and their role in society is often questioned or even marginalised. The world we live in is predominately controlled by men and in many cultures, for example tribal or where strict religion is in force (Amish, Islam) women have struggled to be anything but second class citizens by Western industrialised standards. Historically our society has made it almost impossible for women to achieve and desires in life. Women are made to feel as though their place is in the kitchen and are not worthy for a job. The sex of a person should not determine what type of responsibilities or what kind of a career a person will have. Society shouldn’t shape and determine what a person does in their life.

The website shows that as the female education rises so fertility, infant and child mortality fall. The increase in girls’ secondary school enrolment is linked with increases in the females’ participation in the labour force and their contributions to household and national income. An educated woman’s political awareness is more exercised and they are more informed about their legal rights and how to apply them. The role of women within the family has always been fairly stereotypical. The link from the website shows you a chart displaying the percentage of what chores women do in comparison to men.

In today’s world of mass media and instant communications, media coverage that often displays women in a stereotypical way. There is also a focus on superficial beauty and sexual discrimination against women. During the 1990s, newspapers would devote three quarters of the front page to men and two thirds of the front page pictures as well. Printed media and electronic in many countries display women in a negative way and do not offer a balanced picture of a female’s diverse life and contribution to society. Additionally, violent pornographic media especially some computer games adversely portrays women and their role in society.

In our society today women are able to balance their career with looking after their children and husband. The website points out that work put women on the historical record, to enable women’s voices to be heard, to listen to their voices and to show their points of view. The website does an excellent job of pointing out females can be seen as second class citizens through many aspects of life. The class of the female may not matter as much; neither does the employment, media or home strategies, the world we live in today is still male dominant. Feminists have steadily made a difference but men have too much power and control in our society.

Others: Women

In almost all countries and societies women are not seen as equal as men and that is no different in America. Even though women make up more than 50% of the population, making them the majority, women are still treated as a minority. Women have been fighting for equality in America for hundreds of years and many gains have been made but still women aren’t treated as equal as men in most aspects of American life for example work.

http://www.now.org/

This is a website for the organization; the National organization for Women (NOW). NOW’s aim is to stop all gender discrimination and harassment in all aspects of society as well as fighting for freedom of things like Abortion for all women. The website outlines major areas of American society where women are still not equal for example in America women are paid only three quarters of what men are paid and Women’s equality is still not guaranteed in the US constitution. It also outlines major gains for equality for women in things like voting, in 1920 women won the right to vote, and female birth control was approved in 1960 which gave women freedom of their bodies.

One area of the website talks about gender equality in the US. Constitution. Within it, it says that the Equal rights amendment was not ratified which suggests America still has a long way to go in the fight for Gender equality. 

"Other" - Mexican Immigrants

http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/arizona-border-mistreatment.html

Arizona Border Watcher has a Reputation for Mistreatment

A ranch owner near the U.S.-Mexican border in Arizona has made it his duty t0 prevent more immigrants from getting into the United States. Roger Barnett, a retired Sheriff. along with his family, continuously watches over their 22,000 acres of land. Barnett claims that over the years the family has prevented about 12,000 immigrants from getting farther into the United States. The border watcher is armed with a pistol and carries a rifle in his truck. Barnett has many times called the border patrol after detaining groups of illegal immigrants. He is admired by civilian border watch groups such as the Minutemen, but is being sued by immigrant rights groups for his actions. Immigrants claim that guns have been pointed at them by Barnett and that he uses racial slurs. In a recent lawsuit, one woman claims to have been kicked by Barnett. Others claim some kind of abuse and even been threatened by Barnett's dogs. Barnett says he has a right to protect his property and is doing his part to keep out illegal immigrants.

http://www/aztlan.net/attacksagainstmexicanimmigrants.htm

This web site contains an article written by a professor at the University of Houston on the subject of Mexican migrants.

He talks of regular coverage on local radio stations across America reporting verbal attacks against migrants, of a racial nature, and claims these sentiments are deeply rooted in US society, often, he says, by educated individuals - even senators.

Being foreign to the aaccepted culture, language and heritage, they invite fear. This, he writes, means many take actions to prevent these foreigners from joining society. Nationalism/patriotism can make followers frightened and insecure in their role.

The writer goes on to talk about the history of this treatment and the role language has played. He talks also of failure in the media and later even likens the migrants' experiences to the rise of Nazi Germany.

He concludes with the comment that there are advantages in the inclusion of these migrants for the country's economy, in terms of labour demands and trade should be noted.

Jill Glazier

"Other" group in America

Religion is a big part of American life especially in the South. This is shown in various ways such as the line “And this be our motto: "In God is our trust" in the American national anthem, and the pledge of American allegiance which is “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”. As a result of this it is not a surprise that in 2008 only 0.7% of the adult American population reported themselves to be atheists.

http://atheists.org/

Above is the website for the American atheists organisation which campaigns for “the civil liberties of atheists and the total, absolute separation of government and religion”. The organisation was founded by Madalyn Murray O’ Hair as the result of her successful battle against mandatory school prayer and bible recitation.
On the website it reads that American Athesists have in the past thirty years

· Fought fervently to defend the Separation of Religion from Government Appeared in all forms of media to defend our positions and criticisms of religion and mythology
· Held Atheist conventions and gatherings throughout the United States, including "Atheist Pride" Marches in state capitals.
· Demonstrated and picketed throughout the country on behalf of Atheist rights and state church separation. The organization has marched to defend the rights of intellectuals such as writer Salman Rushdie, protested the use of government funds to support public religious displays, and conducted the first picket of a Roman Catholic pope in history.
· Published over 120 books about Atheism, criticism of religion, and state/church separation. Published newsletters, magazines and member-alerts.
· Built a broad outreach in cyberspace with mailing lists, an ftp and web site, FaxNet and other projects to keep members and the general public informed.
· Fostered a growing network of Representatives throughout the nation who monitor important First Amendment issues, and work on behalf of the organization in their areas.
· Grown a network of volunteers who perform a variety of important tasks in their community, from placing American Atheist books in libraries to writing letters and publicizing the Atheist perspective.
· Preserved Atheist literature and history in the nation's largest archive of its kind. The library's holdings span over three hundred years of Atheist thought. Provided speakers for colleges, universities, clubs and the news media.
· Granted college scholarships to young atheist activists


I found this interesting as although the opinions on the website are extremely one sided and don’t consider the view of religious people at all, it does raise the point that America is a deeply Religious country and for Americans who are not Religious they do have reason to think that their views are not being represented. The fact that the 1963 court case which decided that schools in America could not force school children to pray or read from the bible caused outrage at the time, makes it clear that most Americans would prefer that schoolchildren were forced to be Christian. Examples of this include the Life magazine in 1964 which stated that Madalyn Murray O’ Hair, who had won the case, was “the most hated woman in America”. This view shows us that Christianity in America in the 1960s were seen as “the norm” which therefore left non-Christian Americans feeling excluded as if they did speak out for their view they could suffer a backlash of hate. Although it isn’t as bad present day than it was in the 1960s, as a result of the religious sentiments of America such as the “in God we Trust” motto it could mean that non-Religious Americans still feel let down and shunned by their country.