This past Sunday now-VP, Joe Biden, squared off on juxtaposing political talk shows against former-VP, Dick Cheney. Both sides vehemently argued why the Obama administration was/wasn’t handling terrorism correctly.
That is the background.
Here is the topic
Monday morning two journalist from Bloomberg News published an article on the war of words (1). Throughout the article the two journalist report on the fighting and list a half dozen quotes from each person. Then it ends.
Recently, Brent and I have been asking ourselves whether some information needs to be limited to the public. This is a prime example of information I would argue should be limited. What these two journalist did was report that two people got in an argument and that they have authority, so we the public should listen. However, they did not fact check either person or give any information regarding the subject on which the two people were arguing. Is this real journalism? Did it really take both of them to read through the quotes from a 15 minute segment and write them down? Wouldn’t real journalist dug up information one what the two members were saying. For instance, Cheney argued that “Christmas day bomber” should not have been read his Miranda rights Well, journalist, tell me what the Bush administration did under a similar circumstance with the “shoe bomber” back in 2003? Was that suspect read his Miranda rights?
It is my conclusion, then that these two journalist have done nothing but complicate the matter for public. This article could have been replaced telling me that Brad Pitt and Angelina were in an argument, because as far as disseminating information that will help me, a voting citizen, make a decision, this article did nothing.
Source:
1) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a6phLM6zkt8k
Showing posts with label Journal Article Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Journal Article Review. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Binaral Rivalry between the Nostrils and in the Cortex
(Wen Zhou and Denise Chen)
I am sure you have heard of left or right eye dominance. I recently I actually found out about left and right ear dominance (apparently the left ear is great at background noise and the right ear is great at conversational noise). Now a new study published in Current Biology (August 20, 2009) shows that our nostrils compete for cortex attention just like our eyes and ears. When opposing scents were applied to the two nostrils the brain did not incorporate them into one smell but rather chose one to recognize.
From now on I will carry some mint leaves or cinnamon in my pocket and if I come across a terrible smell I will just reach for them and hope my brain chooses the right smell to accept.
I am sure you have heard of left or right eye dominance. I recently I actually found out about left and right ear dominance (apparently the left ear is great at background noise and the right ear is great at conversational noise). Now a new study published in Current Biology (August 20, 2009) shows that our nostrils compete for cortex attention just like our eyes and ears. When opposing scents were applied to the two nostrils the brain did not incorporate them into one smell but rather chose one to recognize.
From now on I will carry some mint leaves or cinnamon in my pocket and if I come across a terrible smell I will just reach for them and hope my brain chooses the right smell to accept.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Indispensability of Political Parties
Central Thesis: Political parties are core to functional democratic polities.
Background: Alexis de Tocqueville, perhaps the father or champion of political parties, stressed that, “political associations, by definition, seek to impose their views on the polity, in practice the interplay among them has contributed to the emergence of norms of tolerance and the institutionalization of democratic rights.” Tocqueville argued that political activity by the populist is a key component to a stable democracy and this is achieved best by an institutionalized party system. Tocqueville argued there are two main types of divisions in a society which are products of socio-economical and cultural disparities and are represented by either the party that emphasizes ideology or the party that emphasizes interests. The former “cling to principles rather than to consequences and private interests which is often studiously veiled under the pretext of the public good.” The latter “glow with a fictitious zeal; their language is vehement, but their conduct is timid and irresolute.” Tocqueville argued that the inherent interests of the privileged and the poor, classes which have always been present in free societies, are only represented by party systems because the populist is more centralist.
Argument for Party: Lipset points to Western Hemisphere and the Latin American countries in general to argue for a party system. Latin America has struggled for decades to establish and maintain democracies but have been largely unsuccessful due to a lack of institutionalized party system. The norm is for one “party” or often military interest to be so strong that it crushes any uprising of a smaller, less organized opposition.
Lipset then points to Russia after the fall of communism. The Communist party has been a stable in every election while many other parties come and go. For example, the 1999 elections had 30 parties on the ballot. It is no surprise that the Communist party has never lost an election. He points to this as a reason a stable democracy needs two powerful, institutionalized parties.
Conclusion: Lipset may be biased as he says, although “political elites may heavily influence the nature of the parties” in post revolutionary United States they are “for the good”. His main thesis is supported by the fact that democracies without 2 institutionalized parties are weak and barely discernible as a democracy. The caveat here is his heavy reliance on Tocqueville to set up his argument. There were obviously those opposing Tocqueville’s ideas (George Washington) in the early 1800’s and their ideas should be explored as well. Do two strong political parties assure that no one party controls the direction of the country? Are the political elites really genuine and benevolent in their pursuits? Or is the two party system a false dichotomy and nothing more than a veil masking the citizens eyes to assure the progress of the “state” over the progress of the people?
Background: Alexis de Tocqueville, perhaps the father or champion of political parties, stressed that, “political associations, by definition, seek to impose their views on the polity, in practice the interplay among them has contributed to the emergence of norms of tolerance and the institutionalization of democratic rights.” Tocqueville argued that political activity by the populist is a key component to a stable democracy and this is achieved best by an institutionalized party system. Tocqueville argued there are two main types of divisions in a society which are products of socio-economical and cultural disparities and are represented by either the party that emphasizes ideology or the party that emphasizes interests. The former “cling to principles rather than to consequences and private interests which is often studiously veiled under the pretext of the public good.” The latter “glow with a fictitious zeal; their language is vehement, but their conduct is timid and irresolute.” Tocqueville argued that the inherent interests of the privileged and the poor, classes which have always been present in free societies, are only represented by party systems because the populist is more centralist.
Argument for Party: Lipset points to Western Hemisphere and the Latin American countries in general to argue for a party system. Latin America has struggled for decades to establish and maintain democracies but have been largely unsuccessful due to a lack of institutionalized party system. The norm is for one “party” or often military interest to be so strong that it crushes any uprising of a smaller, less organized opposition.
Lipset then points to Russia after the fall of communism. The Communist party has been a stable in every election while many other parties come and go. For example, the 1999 elections had 30 parties on the ballot. It is no surprise that the Communist party has never lost an election. He points to this as a reason a stable democracy needs two powerful, institutionalized parties.
Conclusion: Lipset may be biased as he says, although “political elites may heavily influence the nature of the parties” in post revolutionary United States they are “for the good”. His main thesis is supported by the fact that democracies without 2 institutionalized parties are weak and barely discernible as a democracy. The caveat here is his heavy reliance on Tocqueville to set up his argument. There were obviously those opposing Tocqueville’s ideas (George Washington) in the early 1800’s and their ideas should be explored as well. Do two strong political parties assure that no one party controls the direction of the country? Are the political elites really genuine and benevolent in their pursuits? Or is the two party system a false dichotomy and nothing more than a veil masking the citizens eyes to assure the progress of the “state” over the progress of the people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
