zenrinkancurrentevents.wordpress.com
see you there!
alicia
TV doctor struck off over Botox-for-sex deal
1 hour ago
Monday 8 June 2009
Friday 5 June 2009
June 4 class
Hey guys!
Apparently, media bias is an interesting topic, so how would you all feel about doing it two weeks in a row?
We can go over different parts of the articles, discuss different view points, maybe you could bring in some examples of bias in Japanese news (sorry, i can't read japanese newspapers! m(__)m ).
How does that sound to you?
(You can leave comments either in the comments section below, or in the chat section at the top left. thanks!)
Friday 29 May 2009
June 4th class: Bias in the Media
Hello!
Sorry, I've fallen down on the job recently! But, I'm back now, and for our next class we'll take a look at two articles and attempt to find the bias in them. Just so you know, there are two articles, one that leans left, and one that leans right. I've taken all the labels off them, and if you're feeling up to it, read through them and see if you can find any biased words or phrases, and which way the article leans. As always, if you don't feel like reading before class, you don't have to!
Enjoy!
Article 1
In Detainee Furor, a Rare Stumble by Pelosi
The furor was heightened on Friday when the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, pushed back against an assertion by Ms. Pelosi, a Democrat who is the House speaker, that she had been misled by agency representatives seven years ago about harsh treatment of terrorism suspects, a claim that struck a raw nerve at the spy headquarters.
Mr. Panetta, a former Democratic congressman from California and a longtime associate of Ms. Pelosi, issued a statement that said the agency’s “contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that C.I.A. officers briefed truthfully,” a rebuttal of Ms. Pelosi’s claim on Thursday that intelligence officials had lied to her.
The deepening dispute over what Ms. Pelosi was told in September 2002 has challenged her credibility and raised new questions about whether she passed up an early opportunity to expose the Bush administration’s harsh treatment of detainees.
Lawmakers and senior government officials say the public furor could also give momentum to the push for an inquiry into the Bush administration’s interrogation policies as well as into what senior members of Congress knew about the treatment of detainees. In his statement, Mr. Panetta said it would ultimately be “up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.”
As for the speaker, she no doubt faces a difficult period. But few think the sharp focus on the interrogation matter is a serious threat to the authority of Ms. Pelosi, a powerful figure who weathered previous Republican assaults with hardly a scratch.
“It is an embarrassment,” said Ross K. Baker, an expert on Congress at Rutgers University, “and clearly nobody wants to be embarrassed, particularly a speaker of the House. But other than that, there is nothing here that threatens her job.”
Ms. Pelosi is not the only one with political exposure. Should any investigation determine that the C.I.A. misled members of Congress, the result could be severely damaging to the agency and to the Republican leaders who have relentlessly pressed the issue against Ms. Pelosi.
Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida, who as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee underwent a briefing similar to Ms. Pelosi’s about three weeks after hers, sides with the speaker. He said he recalled a “bland” session.
“I do not have any recollection that day of there being a discussion of something that would have been as neon as waterboarding or other torture techniques,” Mr. Graham said.
He said his confidence in the C.I.A.’s account of the briefings had also been shaken by what he said was an incorrect assertion by the agency that he had been briefed on four dates. Mr. Graham, who famously keeps a detailed record of his daily activities, checked and determined that the agency was wrong about three dates and that he had attended only one session before leaving the Intelligence Committee.
“This is just a small chapter of a long, long book of C.I.A. inaccuracies, particularly in the early part of this decade,” he said.
But Mr. Graham was not present for the briefing with Ms. Pelosi. The only other lawmaker present, Porter J. Goss, then a Republican congressman from Florida who was the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and later became the C.I.A. director, has contradicted her account. He said he and Ms. Pelosi were told that the agency intended to use the harsh methods.
Republicans on Friday continued to dispute Ms. Pelosi’s assertion that at her sole 2002 briefing as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, she was told that the Bush administration had determined waterboarding was legal but that it was not being used.
Senator Christopher S. Bond, Republican of Missouri, a member of the Intelligence Committee, said on the “Today” show on NBC: “I have looked at the underlying materials, not only the records they kept but the cables they sent out to the field. From what was apparently contemporaneous documents, it’s clear that they did tell her.”
The furor surrounding Ms. Pelosi’s claim that she was misled has obscured one undisputed fact about the briefings. The Sept. 4, 2002, session, the first given to anyone in Congress on the so-called enhanced interrogation methods, came weeks after the C.I.A. had started to use the methods. Even if Ms. Pelosi had taken action, it is doubtful it would have averted the firestorm about torture that was to come.
Fellow Democrats say they support the speaker, and they will probably become more united as she faces attacks from polarizing opponents like Newt Gingrich, who lashed out at the speaker on Friday, or faces calls from the right to step down. The Democrats say her predicament shows the perils of classified briefings, which can handcuff those who attend if they hear something objectionable.
Since Ms. Pelosi became speaker in 2007, Republicans have repeatedly sought to undercut her, questioning her use of government aircraft and accusing her of aiding pet interests and of acting high-handedly. But the assaults had gained little traction before this latest episode, and with their fortunes down, Republicans are doing what they can to keep the issue alive.
In Ms. Pelosi’s home state, California, residents say they are having a hard time accepting her account. “I’m very skeptical of what she’s saying, and when she goes to get re-elected, this could really damage her credibility,” said Delphine Langille of San Ramon, one of several people interviewed Friday outside of City Hall in San Francisco.
Mr. Panetta’s message to C.I.A. employees, under the heading “Turning Down the Volume,” appeared to be an effort to calm the dispute between the speaker and the agency and show that despite his outsider status he would stand up for his employees.
In a statement issued Friday evening, Ms. Pelosi also sought to quiet matters.
“My criticism of the manner in which the Bush administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe,” she said. “What is important now is to be united in our commitment to ensuring the security of our country.”
Article 2
Little Green Cars Get ready, folks: America is about to own a car company. As of Monday, we the taxpayers will own more than 70 percent of GM. Whether the company will be formally renamed Government Motors remains to be seen. But that’s what it will be.
Taxpayers now own Government Motors, but they’ll never get paid back.
Instead of putting the failed car enterprise into bankruptcy six months ago — where Carl Icahn or Wilbur Ross could have bought it — the Bush administration chose Bailout Nation. Under Team Obama, that bailout has morphed into full-scale government ownership. Twenty billion dollars of TARP money is already invested in GM, with another $50 billion on the way. And that number could easily double unless GM car sales miraculously climb back to 14 million this year. That’s highly unlikely, with car sales now hovering around 9 million a year.In other words, taxpayers are not going to get their money back. Yes, we the people will be left holding the bag for the mistakes of GM’s management and labor leaders over the last four decades.
And with CAFE mileage standards ratcheting up — all while GM is going down — Team Obama’s green vision for the economy will soon be crystal clear. With President Obama in the driver’s seat, we’re going to get little green two-door cars that most folks won’t want to buy.
Even worse, UAW chief Ron Gettelfinger has made it plain that his powerful union won’t let these cars be manufactured in low-cost non-union plants overseas. The result? Obama’s little green cars are going to be unprofitable as well.
But it’s the bigger picture that has me most concerned. What does Government Motors say about the direction of the United States? Historically, we don’t own car companies — or banks or insurance firms. But we do now. Tick them off on your fingers: GM, Citi, AIG. Oh, and let’s not forget Fannie and Freddie, those big, quasi-government, taxpayer-owned housing agencies. California is broke and likely headed to bankruptcy. Will we the taxpayers own that, too?
Altogether, we’re talking about hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars that will never be repaid. This is the stuff the Italians used to do, and the Brits before Thatcher, and the Soviets a long time ago. But it’s something very new and very different for America.
Is this onslaught of government ownership an attack on free-market capitalism? Yes, it is. Call it Bailout Nation or Ownership Nation, it’s an unprecedented degree of government command, control, and planning, all in the name of a tough economic downturn.
I don’t pretend to know all the answers to GM’s problems. Neither do I know all the miscues of the banks and insurance companies. But I do know this: The present level of government control over the economy does not bode well for this great country.
When I sat down with former vice president Dick Cheney for a CNBC interview this week, I asked him about all this. He wasn’t happy. Of course, many of these policies began during the Bush-Cheney administration, and Cheney didn’t deny it. But when I asked if he anticipated the current degree of government control, he gave me another honest answer, as is his custom: No.
Regarding the banks, Cheney said the bailout work was done over at the Treasury (under Henry Paulson), and that no critical studies were performed by the White House. Cheney himself opposed the GM bailout, preferring Chapter 11 bankruptcy. He did sign on to the TARP bailout of banks as a stopgap measure. But he didn’t anticipate its eventual size, scope, and sweep. Then, squarely acknowledging the mistake, he compared Bailout Nation to Nixon’s wage-and-price-control program, which touched every enterprise in America. He called it “a terrible mistake; a huge mistake.” By implication, Cheney suggested that the original Bush bailout program was itself a big mistake.
As for Nixon’s wage-and-price-control policy, the former veep reminded me that “we finally got out of it, but it took a long time to do it, and it [did] a lot of damage.”
Cheney was very critical of Obama’s big-government spending-and-borrowing policies, too, telling me that there are only two ways out: inflating the money supply or big tax increases. He doesn’t like either. Yes, Cheney believes Obama has taken Bailout Nation and government stimulus way beyond anything the Bushies ever contemplated. Nevertheless, the damage is done.
Cheney recalled Bush’s having said that “we have to suspend free-market capitalism in order to save free-market capitalism.” So the big question is this: How long before we resurrect free-market capitalism, and how much damage will current policies do in the meantime?
I won’t lose my faith in this country’s long-term future. But the issue of how much damage we sustain before returning to the policies of free-market economic growth is very much on my mind.
Friday 1 May 2009
New stuff added!
Hey everyone!
Ahead of the Golden Week Holidays, I've updated the blog so that there are lots of resources to look into over the next few days.
If you look down the left side, you'll see links to several of my favorite news sites, and some news feeds from journals and international organizations. There is also a video feed to America's Public Broadcasting System. Please enjoy exploring them!
I'm actually going to wait a little bit before posting the next topic...We have the next five days off! So enjoy your Golden Week, and I'll be back in a few days!
Friday 24 April 2009
Topic for April 30
PAKISTAN!!
Interesting developments in Pakistan...here are some articles to get you started!
Tuesday 21 April 2009
Topic for April 23rd
Hey guys!
On April 23rd, I thought we'd have a chat about Communism! Apparentely, the Japanese Communist Party is enjoying a lot of support recently. Here's some articles...more are coming!
The Japan Times
The New York Times
Telegraph.co.uk
Thursday 16 April 2009
April 23rd handout
And, here's what we'll do ne xt week! Exciting stuff!
Negotiations often come in several different stages:
1. Pre-Negotiation Preparation
2. Opening statements
3. Agenda
4. Accepting or rejecting
5. Closing
This time we went through steps number 1 & 2. J
Next we will continue on with steps 3 through 5. Here are some phrases to keep in mind:
Agenda
Stating Objectives
| ⋆ Our main objective is to… |
| ⋆ What we’d like to achieve from this meeting is… |
Checking for agreement
| ⋆ Does that seem acceptable to you? |
| ⋆ Do you agree to that? |
Accepting or rejecting
Accepting
| ⋆ Yes, that sounds acceptable. |
| ⋆ We’re prepared to agree to that. |
Rejecting
| ⋆ I understand where you’re coming from, however... |
| ⋆ I’m prepared to compromise, but… |
| ⋆ I’m afraid that doesn’t work for me. |
| ⋆ Is that your best offer? |
Closing
Positive
| ⋆ It sounds like we've found some common ground. |
| ⋆ I think we both agree to these terms. |
| ⋆ I'm satisfied with this decision. |
| ⋆ Would you be willing to sign a contract right now? |
Negative
⋆ I'd like to stop and think about this for a little while. |
| ⋆ You've given me a lot to think about/consider. |
| ⋆ Let's meet again once we've had some time to think. |
**Bear in mind you don’t need to memorize all these particular sentences. If there’s another way of saying the same thing that feels more comfortable to you, feel free to use it.**
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
