policy with pop

Republican: Barack the Magic...

While PolicyWithPop.com was on a two-month hiatus, America elected Barack Obama the next President of the United States. With its electoral losses, the Republican Party is in disarray and looking for new leadership. The Republican National Committee (RNC) is holding elections for a new party chair. There are currently six candidates.

It is really anyone’s game. One RNC chair candidate, Chris Saltsman, not only sent each RNC member a note asking for support but attached a CD that contains a controversial jingle that takes jabs at the president-elect in hopes of appealing to RNC members. It parodies “Puff the Magic Dragon.”

 

Let’s take a moment to remember the kiddie classic.

Now the conservative parody is not really kid-friendly and PC as the inspirational Puff. The song, produced by the Rush Limbaugh Show, is sung by a white political satirist, Paul Shanklin, imitating Rev. Al Sharpton’s voice. You can click here to hear it. The song bases its lyrics on an LA Times opinion piece and is entitled “Barack the Magic Negro.”

 

Magic what!?! Apparently it is a cinematic term, which refers to black characters that mysteriously appear out of nowhere and miraculously save the white protagonists. I’ve never watched it but apparently The Legend of Bagger Vance starring Will Smith and Matt Damon is an example.

The opinion piece mentions that Obama has been criticized for not being “genuine” black. The song takes this argument to another level. With an Al Sharpton-impersonated voice, the song’s lyrics proclaim: Barack is “black but not authentically.”

 

The opinion piece and the song’s lyrics are referencing the fact that Obama is half-white and did not live in “the hood.” They eerily echo Ku Klux Klan’s view. KKK national director Thomas Robb stated, “Obama is only half black. Not only is he only half black – he was not raised in a black environment. He was raised by his single [white] mother.”

 

If you read the LA Times opinion, do you think it crossed a line? Or was it a fair-game assessment of Obama?

 

Is the song racist as some claim? Or is it just political satir? Does it matter that it bases its lyrics on the LA Times opinion?  

 

If the song is acceptable political satire, is it smart for Republicans to bring up Obama’s race in a negative manner even as a joke? Does it open up Republicans to charges of racism? Or are Republicans strategically pushing the envelope to make it easier/more acceptable to criticize the first black President?

Palin Faces Sexism... from Media or McCain?

We’ve already discussed the alleged sexism Democrat Hillary Clinton faced in her primary defeat, but is Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin facing sexism in the general?

The McCain campaign and Republicans claims that Palin has been the victim of sexism, especially by the media. One example it frequently mentions is when questions are raised if Palin should be vice president because she is a mother of five. These questions do not arise when male politicians with children run for office. The campaign has also taken issue of the media and society trivializing her candidacy and invading her family’s privacy.

But the McCain campaign is not the only one to cry foul. A pro-Hillary group has also criticized the supposed sexism directed at Palin, even though they do not support her. Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona, who was an Obama supporter in the primary, also noted that Palin faced sexism.

More importantly, SNL has picked up and decided to expose the supposed sexism. Watch it here: 

But the media is not taking these charges lightly. CNN’s Campbell Brown made this declaration:

So is Palin the victim of sexism? And, if so, who’s at the oppressor? Is it the media and society? Or is the McCain campaign? And, what are fair questions and what are sexist?

Note: After Campbell’s charges that the McCain campaign was silencing Sarah Palin from speaking to the media, Palin finally had her first Q&A with the media. Coincidence?

Oprah: See No Palin, Speak No Palin, Hear No Palin

Sarah Palin is in high demand. She made the cover of Time Magazine and countless tabloids. But, despite the attention, she avoided the Sunday political talk show circuit last week. Palin did however interview with ABC World News’ Charlie Gibson on Thursday and will take the hot seat with Fox News’ Sean Hannity next.

One person whom Palin will not be gabbing with before the election: Oprah Winfrey. The Queen of Daytime Talk reportedly refused to have a sit down with Palin on her show. Oprah denied these allegations.

Oprah is a huge Barack Obama supporter, publicly stumping and raising money for him.

She stated that since she publicly announced support for a politician - a first for the media mogul - she will not invite any of the candidates on the Oprah Winfrey Show until after the election. This policy includes Obama and Palin.

Some conservative women are upset at what they see as a slight to the first woman on the Republican presidential ticket. Some of them are calling for a boycott of the show until Oprah allows Palin onto the show.

Do you think Oprah’s self-imposed policy is reasonable and fair? Or do you think Oprah is being biased and is just trying to hinder the McCain-Palin campaign from reaching her legion of women viewers?

9/11 Conspiracy & YouTube Videos

As you know, I love learning new and different views (that’s why I’m always asking for your opinion). Well, a few days ago, I found myself in a discussion that I’ve never really had or considered: A conspiracy theory about who was really responsible for the 9/11 attacks…

Even though I’ve known that some people believe that the United States government, not Al-Qaeda, is the real culprit behind the World Trade Center buildings’ collapse, I had never really looked into the possibility. Plus, it was never really covered seriously or in depth by the traditional news media.

My friends, who are highly-educated, decided to show me circumstantial evidence (via YouTube of course) that seemed to support the claim. We watched a video of BBC News reporting that authorities informed it that Building 7 collapsed. Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, did in fact fall on 9/11, but 20 minutes after the BBC made its announcement. In fact, Building 7 is visibly standing when the anchor reports the news. Here’s the video:

It does seem suspicious. Conspiracy theorists are convinced that this reporting accident proves that the government planned to take down the World Trade Center buildings and simply got the timing of disseminating the information wrong.

The official government reason that Building 7 collapse is:

Fire.

Conspiracy theorists are calling the government explanation out. Citing engineers, physicists and other experts, they say that fire cannot melt steel. Furthermore, if you search YouTube, numerous videos question the manner in which Building 7 (as well as the Twin Towers) fell. They say it collapsed or imploded like a planned, controlled demolition with explosives. Here’s another video:

Honestly, I’m not sure what to make of all of it. But, I can say I am more open to learning more.

So you tell me: Can we trust the government? And if the government is capable of this, what does it mean for the American people? And why hasn't the conspiracy theory been covered seriously by the traditional news media in America? Is it all just “crazy talk” promulgated by the internet?

Spain Eyes Olympic Offense

The Olympics: the global venue that allows athletes to show the world their abilities. Sometimes they shine and inspire the world. (I'm talking about you, Michael Phelps.) Sometimes they give heartbreaking performances. (No need to name names, US women's gymnastics.) But sometimes, Olympic athletes gain international attention for their antics outside of competition. Case and point: Spain's basketball team.

Spain's Olympic basketball team riled the world by taking this picture before coming to Beijing:

As you can see, the players used their index fingers to stretch their eyes to make Asian "slant eyes." They are getting heat for the picture as critics are calling their pose offensive, disrespectful, divisive and racist.

How did Team Spain respond? It criticized the media for blowing this picture out of proportion and defended the picture pose. The team said it was just following the instructions of their sponsor Seur, a Spanish courier company, for an ad. They thought that the pose would honor China, the host of these Olympics Games.

When taking the pose, player Jose Calderson thought the picture "was going to be something nice, something with no problem." He went on to call the picture "an affectionate gesture" on his blog. Head coach Aito Garcia Reneses compared it to taking a picture on you on tips of your toes to honor tall opponents. He didn't consider that nor the "slant eyes" pose offensive.

Another player, Pau Gasol, admitted he was uncomfortable with the picture but not because he thought there were racial undertones but because he thought slanting his eyes was "clownish." Although he went on to apologize to anyone offended, saying that was not the intent.

Do you think the "slant eyes" are offensive and an unworthy pose for Olympic athletes to make? Or do you think the PC police and the media are creating unnecessary drama?

What do you think of Spain's response to this controversy? How would you handle? And what, if any, repercussions should Spain's basketball team face?

Spice Girls: More Positive News Headlines

When the Spice Girls reunited last year for a new greatest hits album and tour, they had a new message. Girl power! Well, yes, but that’s been their trademark for quite a while. They decided to make the headlines and declare that friendship never ends (apparently Geri “Ginger Spice” Halliwell’s break from Spice Girl friendship wasn’t added into the equation).

Anyway, while their single “Headlines (Friendship Never Ends)” tries valiantly to bring more positive and happy news to the news, the news media have another issue it would like to raise – namely crime.

According to a report for the Building Blocks for Youth Initiative, news coverage of crime in America increased, while actual crime in America decreased in the 1990’s. Between 1990 and 1998 the network news increased its homicide coverage by 473% when arrest rates actually declined 32.9% in that time. This is just one statistic the report cites to show the unbalanced coverage crime receives.

Is the news media portrayal of crime inaccurate? If so, is it justified?

Should the news media try to show more positive, upbeat news? If so, how do we change the news coverage? Or is this heavy burden the Spice Girls’ responsibility?

Couric: Sexist Media Treated Clinton Unfairly

Katie Couric, the first solo female anchor on a weekday nightly news program, has some harsh words for the news media: You’re sexist. She cites the news media’s unfair treatment and coverage of Senator Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign as evidence of its sexism.

I’ll let the lady speak for herself in the following video:

Couric is not alone in her views. Of course, the Clinton campaign often raised this criticism. Feminists were also outraged at the news media’s coverage of Clinton. Surprisingly SNL also caught wind of the unfair treatment Clinton received, especially in the debates, and parodied the situation. Watch the clip:

After the SNL’s sketch, the moderators in the following debate between Clinton and Senator Barack Obama were noticeably tougher on Obama.

So does Couric have a point? Is the news media sexist? And if so, how do we make it gender neutral? Or could it be that the lady doth protest too much?

Bonus question: if the news media treated Clinton unfairly, did it play a major part in the failure of Clinton’s presidential campaign?