Chinese Train Station Massacre

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of senseless violence that occurs in this world. Today a group of over 10 people in black clothes and masks ambushed citizens at random at a train station in China. After a shootout between authorities 29 people were left dead, and 130 people were injured. The interesting part to me comes because in the media this incident is being branded as China's 9/11. One thing they have discovered through the investigation is that the perpetrators originated from Xinjiang, which is the home of the Uighurs, an ethnic group present in Western China. 

The reaction is what truly fascinates me because it is reminiscent of the anti-Japanese sentiment during World War II, and also the post 9/11 view on Islam. According to the article there has been a recent pattern in violence in Xinjiang, but much like most Muslims are not going to fly a plane in to a skyscraper in order to fulfill Jihad, the Uighurs are simple and quiet people who are being persecuted now as a result of their misbehaving terrorist brothers and sisters. It has been reported that even apartment building and condo owners are reporting resident Uighurs to the police even without suspicion. If something doesn't happen to curb the occurrences of violence in China as a whole, the Uighurs and other tribes associated with Chinese revolutionaries will surely run to the aid of the country to preserve their reputation.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-02/after-train-station-attack-labeled-chinas-9-11-a-search-for-culprits-focuses-on-minority-group

"How the White House softened Hilary Clinton's image" (blog 4)

A recent article from ABC news highlighted the various ways in which the White House attempted to "soften" Hilary Clinton's stern and serious image while she was the First Lady. In order to "make her involvement in policy seem 'less extreme'", Clinton's advisers pushed her to be more "real" and offered a number of suggestions for doing so, like appearing on the then-popular television show "Home Improvement", harnessing the Internet, avoiding the national press in favor of meeting with local press. They advised her to answer reporters' questions in a conversational rather than defensive style, suggested she participate in a 20/20 interview with the President and Barbara Walters (one framed around their 20th anniversary, so that it would not seem too political) and even gave style advice.

This story reminded me of this week's reading. The media is an extremely powerful force, due largely in part to its reflexivity - as the reading states, it does not only inform us of what is going on in the world, but has a creating/"forming" function as well. It shapes our perceptions of reality, and therefore our opinions. Clinton's advisers used this to their advantage, harnessing the power of television and the Internet to reach as many people as they could. I was young during the Clinton presidency and do not know whether these attempts did anything to "humanize" Hilary or shift public opinion about her (the article does not mention the effects), but my guess is that they did not affect her image too much - or she would not be a contender for the presidency today. I am curious to see how the news media will portray her in the years to come.

Congress pushes for Russia sanctions, Ukrainian aid

The article was about the situation currently going on in the Ukraine. Over the weekend Russia's parliament authorized the use of troops in the Ukraine. As a result of this President Obama had a 90 minute phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, where he emphasized further political and economical isolation if he continues to intervene in the Ukraine, Obama also noted that he would boycott the upcoming G-8 summit in Russia. After the conversation with Putin, Obama gave a speech on the situation claiming the russia would face "costs" for intervening in the Ukraine. The article then goes on to discuss U.S. Representatives and Senators opinions on possible sanctions against Russia.
I relate this article to the reading by Jamieson because Obama used deliberative rhetoric when he addressed the people about Russia's involvement in the Ukraine. This is similar to when Obama addressed the nation on the S&P downgrade and the gulf oil spill. His response was more deliberative rhetoric than epideictic rhetoric.  

Tone it down, Hilary Clinton

In an article on abcnew.go, there is an interesting post about "six ways the white house tried to soften Hilary Clinton" meaning six ways the white house tried to make Hilary Clinton seem less involved in politics and more feminine and unaware of the real business side of the white house. She was told not to appear defensive, and to be ready to answer questions such as "have you ever done drugs" . Of course she has an image to live up to being the first lady, but why does she need to seem less politically involved?!
    The White House first suggested she appear in "Home Improvement" which was the most popular American television show at the time. They wanted her to seem more like-able and said this would do the trick, but she declined noting that it would diminish the seriousness of her role as first lady. They also suggested that the Clinton's 20th wedding anniversary be publicized, and that they should do an interview for it, since it would not be too political of an event.
   Other suggestions for Clinton included looking for "opportunities for humor" while making public appearances, and to always have a conversational tone of voice as to not seem like she was giving a speech.
     This all goes hand in hand which politics and how people in power market themselves a specific way in order to get a certain reaction from people. It is all staged and their every move is mapped out. This article reminded me of Kathleen Hall Jamieson's article criticizing Barack Obama and his choices . She critiques a eulogy he made for a funeral, and says the setting and pace he spoke changed it into more of a speech. These small elements are very crucial for politicians and impact their image greatly. In Hilary Clinton's case, instead of them trying to make her seem more professional and correct as they do with presidents such as Obama, they were trying to make her seem more aloof and unaware unfortunately because she is a woman.

Arizona Gov. Veto

 In Arizona, there was a recent bill that was vetoed that  would have allowed the right to deny service to gay

and lesbian customers. As an issue that has been seen a lot, I found it interesting that the news will focus on

something that will have to do outside of California, in a  state that will focus mostly in deportation and

immigration. It is also interesting to see how large corporations "surged the oppositions".In other words,

oppositions seem to be something one will never fully have something that will ever change because a

majority vote will always get in the way. The senator who vetoed this bill was Jan Brewer, and she states, "

Religious liberty is a core of American and Arizona value. So is nondiscrimination". With this stated, I feel

like Americas values keep being used, as a center of decision, that seem to always be impacted by the bills

that are highly controversial, such as who to accept and who to treat less.

Facebook: Not As Innocent As We Think

It can be assumed that most people are active Facebook users.  Within the last year, Facebook has introduced a new app called "Facebook Messenger" that allows for an easier messaging experience.  Though this idea seems simple and convenient, recent investigations have shown that this app is far more invasive than one may think.  For example, in the terms of conditions agreement, it states that upon accepting, you are granting Facebook access to not only your personal information, but it can call numbers, take pictures and videos, and most shockingly, record audio from your phone at any given moment without your permission. 

Not only is this highly invasive, it is pretty scary.  Though there are some advantages to this access, such as tracking a suspected individual or using said data as evidence in an important case, this level of invasiveness seems a little bit much.  This strongly correlates with the reading about the ideograph in that it examines privacy versus security.  At which point does one become more important/necessary than the other? 

Ukraine

Well the Ukraine saga just got even crazier. Russia has sent troops to the Crimea region of Ukraine. Putin has said they did this in order to protect Russian interests in the region, the region itself has been very pro-Russian throughout the political upheaval. President Obama had issued a statement saying that any military action would have its "costs". Well the card are all on the table now, the United Nations had an emergency meeting discussing what actions need to be taken.