On September 23, 1952, Senator Richard Nixon secured a prime time appearance on KPTV television to defend charges against him regarding rumors of the existence of a slush fund, believed to be used in financing Nixon’s campaign.  With the Truman-Eisenhower presidential election only weeks away, it was important that Nixon reach as many voters as possible in order to reclaim his integrity and save the Republican chance for victory in the next election.

 With the acknowledgement that those watching his speech, were likely to be familiar with the charges against him, but not with the bureaucratic rules for financing political campaigns, Nixon treated the audience as intelligent adults, who, with the correct knowledge could conclude on their own that it was all a misunderstanding or an unfounded smear campaign by his political foes.

 By minimizing statements that would reflect party affiliation, Nixon made it clear that his speech was not about recruiting democrats or rallying republicans, but about regaining personal credibility. Nixon positioned himself at the outset of his remarks as a citizen concerned about his perceived integrity and only near his conclusion did he step into the role of a partisan campaigner.

In a speech that would make history and become known as  the “Checkers” speech, Nixon communicated his intended identity, as well as the driving force in his message, in the first three words.  They are “My fellow Americans,” and shortly after these words are spoken, titles, such as that of a senator or a lawyer become mere formalities and Richard might as well be sitting next to you on the couch, asking you if you see where he’s coming from. 

Why should the world’s largest social medium of communication be above the rules? The first amendment is controversial around the world. The United States government and many of its citizens preach the virtues of freedom of speech. False truths displayed as knowledge online do not come into question and are not held to the same high standards as print newspapers are.           

Is the Internet above the law? Should the Internet be viewed as the glimmer of hope in a world where those with military power also have the power to dictate what is acceptable information to the public?

People should always have the right to express themselves. Period. That is what most people’s instinctual response will be when questioned about the right to freedom of speech.  The Internet should be an outlet for everyone to have their voices heard and to find unbiased information from sources around the world.

Censorship online is masked by millions of choices. Censorship offline is always being questioned, from intelligent design vs. evolution at school, to waving banners in front of the Whitehouse to rally against all popularly available dissatisfactions. 

Even three years ago, bloggers were pariahs within the media community.  More traditional journalists, whom criticized these online postings as more fantasy and opinion than journalistic material, frowned upon the so-called new media.  Today, virtually all major reporters blog on top of their regular contributions to the paper.  Several professional bloggers can be found within the ranks of newspapers.

Why are these bloggers necessary?  The fact is that the readers were dissatisfied with the cut and dry tone of the news.  Americans love not to have facts, but opinions, judgments, and ideals they can relate to.  How else can one explain the rise of media shows like the O’Reiley Factor, Larry King live, or Howard Stern?  

As a former International Relations major, I am always interested in keeping abreast of the most recent political events.  For this reason, I try to read Chris Cillizza blog the Fix.  Unlike more cut and dry articles that can be found on the main pages of the newspaper,The Fix catches many of the stories that are not necessarily deemed “newsworthy” to editors. 

Though occasionally biased and over opinioned, the Fix is a great place to start a conversation.  In traditional online newspaper articles, the only links are to other articles within the site, limiting the amount of research and information the reader has access to.  By visiting the Fix, one can find links posted both by Mr. Cillizza and fellow Internet browsers to other sources beyond the Washington Post in order to find information.  This secondary information can be either corroborate or disprove Cillizza’s statements, and allows the reader to make a more informed judgment.

Herein lies the greatest advantage of blogs over traditional media: its ability to link to research posts allows a way to further research a topic presented within the media.  This search and increase in knowledge generates further debate and discussion on blogs, creating a cycle of information presentation, research, and discussion.  Though traditional media can generate interest, it cannot generate the discussion that is inherent to the news.

It is this ability to generate discussion and easy access to further information, which have captured the interest of so many people, and have made blogs mandatory supplements to all newspapers from the Wall Street Journal to the San Francisco Chronicle.

There has been some debate regarding the value of military blogs (milblogs), I believe that military blogs serve a vital function. Soldiers use blogging to rally cries of democracy from Iraq where the instilment of democracy is seen by many as smoke screen put forth by an isolated American regime.

Is it good to have an army that questions its orders? I believe the answer to that question is yes. The Internet is giving a voice to those soldiers overseas who for the past 3 wars had only a pen. I believe the more the army can blog about their resentment, the higher the chance they will actualize their dissidence and just go home. 

I believe the Iraq war is unjust. I think that soldiers are being used as little pawns in the president’s game of global “nation building” chess.  This post will not necessarily win me the hearts and minds of the more military minded, but read on to at least understand my justification. Soldiers can begin to win the hearts and minds of those Americans back home who may have voted for a war they now see exploding in front of them.

People would have had a better idea of the true role of the special advisors sent to Vietnam by Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson if there had been a wifi connection. Perhaps protests would have gained more momentum prior to the draft had there been more stories discussing the political and military conditions on the ground.  Had Agent Orange reared its toxic presence through youtube screens across America, perhaps the backlash to Vietnam and the use of chemical warfare would have been felt sooner.

Bloggers in Iraq are able to be the accurate news source when the BBC is nowhere to be found. Live feeds of ground troops show Americans back at home the gore, filth and human tragedy that was not priorly available to the mass public at home.

While some may say that military blogs are harmful, the American people should be informed about the gusto or lack there of, going on overseas. The U.S. military should be allowed to have an ongoing digital conversation with the American public.

A few years ago I was waiting to see a movie at the tech-savvy popular Metreon in downtown San Francisco. What I found at the Metreon was an advanced insult to the notoriously politically correct city where this machine had planted its high tech brainwashing squirrelly self.

I saw children holding plastic machine guns and heard the words ‘shoot the terrorist’ echoing from the multi-media center. The screen was set to a desert backdrop and the enemies darting across it were wearing headscarves.  Needless to say I freaked out.  No, don’t do it, I told my 20-year old brother as he strode purposefully over to this soul- stealing machine. “But it has really cool high-tech laser beams,” he responded casually. I stood helplessly by and pondered the invisible arm turned machine that is/was Donald Rumsfeld.

In her post ‘Gaming as a Recruiting and Tracking Tool for the Army,’ Cullen writes “Using these tactics in recruiting people to make one of the biggest decisions of their lives when it might be hard to divorce the virtual world from reality is less than reputable.”

As 2007 turns to 2008 games become more high-tech and draw more audiences than can fit into a game room. Online, the army seduces a young, screen fixed audience to train for a war they are not made to see as real. This is done by making their virtual war game seem so real, that the real thing, (after being recruited according to game skill and sent to Iraq), seems like just another game over.

I should have read Kia’s post ‘Barack Obama’s Long Tail: BEYOND Dean, BEFORE The election,’ before I did my own post embracing web 2.0 to advance knowledge on presidential candidates.  Kia and Obama are two steps ahead of me in knowing how to use web 2.0 to reach the people and promote an informed democracy. Until I took Media politics and truth in the digital world, I did not really think twice about the e-mails I would receive from presidential candidate Barack Obama. Sure, I signed up to work on his campaign, wrote some essays and answered marketing research questions, but I did not think of the larger impact my casual participation played in world history. I got informed, I volunteered and I gave advice on how to better reach people of my demographic. Most of this communication happened while I was alone in my room and with people I have never met. 

“Hey Emily, Its Barack, I just wanted to tell you that my visit to S.F. last week went great and I hope to see you at the next event!” These e-mails would be met with a slight grin and eventual spam.

When I look at Obama’s plan for a public media web 2.0. my initial reaction is one of extreme excitement.  Web cams all over the Whitehouse are an intriguing concept. The ability to watch all congressional hearings online blows my mind.  I start to wonder though how many people would really take advantage of Obama’a plan to bring more government transparency by means of the ever-expanding information super highway. Most people who have the Internet also have a Starbucks up the street from their house, where they can pick up the New York Times and read about many of the issues Obama plans to publish online. The question is why would the vast majority of America, who continuously declines to embrace knowledge already inches from their fingertips, go read about it online. 

Would Obama’s chief technology officer truly bring democracy to a wired America or become just another D.C. acronym

I punched a rocket scientist, kicked a lawyer and tackled a former intelligence officer. Just another Thursday night in Washington D.C.

 Next Tuesday I will arrive at George Washington University to do it all over again.

We show up in uniforms. We don’t really know what each other does outside of the club.  Every now and than I will catch my breath and ask my opponent what their day job is. Last night I asked Lila exactly what kind of systems it is that she engineers. Aeronautics, wow.  After class as I passed her in the locker room, I said, “so you’re a rocket scientist?” I was surprised to have this comment met with a casual shrug of acknowledgement. 

The sample population in my Tae kwon do club is an example of the people you will find in Washington D.C.

On my way to class the other night I got into a debate regarding the economic disparities between Eritrea and Ethiopia…with my cab driver.

Doesn’t everyone want to punch a lawyer? 

The United States government, in its attempt to instill cultural hegemony in the Middle East, has been responsible for thousand of lives and has abused the potential for any real democracy. It has used military strength to conquer and imperialize nations of its choice and justified its actions with the right to spread American values around the world.

            The United States continues to find itself mired in a deadly civil war in Iraq, with American soldiers sustaining heavy casualties, America’s population divided, and the country at odds with many people and governments around the world. People everywhere – Americans and millions in other nations – remain angry and confused.  Many critics maintain that America is stoking the fires of revolution and destruction, rather than extinguishing them; destroying freedom in the name of freedom; waging war in the name of peace. Still it appears that the U.S. is reaping the rewards of a foreign policy driven by the thirst for power and economic self-interest, ineptly masked by high-sounding rationales that crumple in the face of reality.

            The advance of American cultural hegemony restricts the freedom of other nations, a freedom it claims to represent. A Washington supported group called “Future for Iraq” composed a project entitled “Preserving Iraq’s Cultural heritage,” with the task of bringing democracy to Iraq.  One recommendation made by the “Future for Iraq” in the interest of protecting freedom of speech is contained in a report titled “Free Media” which “proposed that all Iraqi journalists be taken out of the country for a month-long reeducation process:  “Those who ‘get it’ go back as a reporter; others would be retired or reassigned.”

The reliability of Ethanol as a durable and lasting means to substitute gasoline is a hotly debated controversy today.  Gasoline companies have accused promoters of Ethanol of compromising their moral integrity with the assumption that they know ethanol is not a reasonable means of cutting down gas consumption.  Ethanol supporters are accused of planting false hope in the minds of idealistic yet scientifically uninformed Americans.

            While ethanol may be of small significance, it is literally a drop in the bucket in the long run and its effects would not even be likely to take effect sometime in this century.  Politicians are believed to be completely aware of the problems in seeing ethanol as the solution but keep on promoting it anyways to fulfill the idealistic hopes of Americans and get into office.

            The promise of ethanol has restricted oil companies from being able to drill in areas where there is still a sufficient supply such as Alaska. This becomes more and more problematic as the world economy develops a higher demand. The price of oil on the open market has skyrocketed as India and China begin to vie for oil that once head mostly west.

            Americans may expect to see oil prices decrease as ethanol allegedly advances but they will only see the price increase as oil refineries are prevented by politicians from using more local resources.  Americans may believe they will have more in their pockets than is really true and misallocate their funds accordingly. The promise of ethanol is used by politicians to play on the absolutist belief system of so many Americans who are looking for a quick solution to an endlessly complex problem.

I would like to add that I am leaving the Iraq war out of my post to simplify what would otherwise be a never ending and overly complex argument.