What’s Really Going On: A Marine’s Perspective on the Surge and Withdrawal of Troops in Iraq

We are experiencing a historical race for the White House in this year of 2008. One of the main issues in this campaign for me, my peers, my family, and my friends is the undeclared war in Iraq. Many of you may have heard Senator McCain and President Bush sing praises about the successful surge in Iraq, and the negatives associated with pulling our troops out.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but can we really know how things are going in Iraq if we are not there? To attempt to answer this question I wrote to a Marine who is a friend, Squad Leader LCPL Wehmeier M.E USMC/0311, and asked him if he thinks that the surge is working, and if he feels that troops should start being pulled out.
This is what Mike said:

“I think that the surged worked and we need to start pulling some forces out, however we need to better train the Iraqi police and army. Which they have a team called MITT which works with them. But, as an occupying force we need to start leaving.”

Mike believes the surge worked or is working, but the crucial point he made is that “-as an occupying force we need to start leaving”.

Squad Leader Wehmeier is an old friend of mine who, in my opinion, is currently serving in an undeclared, unjustified war. Along with many other friends and all of the other mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and family members who have a loved one in Iraq, I need to know this is a top priority in the 2008 campaign. This is my primary concern, the loss of innocent lives due to an undeclared war that should never have been started. It is 2008; we are civilized human beings that should be able to end conflicts without war.

My heart goes out to these men and women every day. Even if the surge did work, it’s time to end the violence.

The next man or woman to take over the Presidency will have to make this monumental decision as to whether or not to start pulling troops out and ending this “war.” All we can do is hope that they make the right decision.

Gina Bove '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies

Dump the Delegates: It’s Time for a Direct Democracy

There are many things in life that I’ll never understand. These are things such as the fluctuation of gas prices as an election is near, how our economy solves its problems by increasing the price of everything, and most importantly, why we have delegates in a presidential election.

Please don’t misunderstand me, for I know the theory behind why we do these things, but they really don’t make any sense for success in the long term.

A few days ago, I was sitting in my Controlling Spin class listening to my professor explain to me why we have delegates in the presidential race. As I listened, my mind began formulating thoughts on why we even vote during the primaries or the November election if our votes don’t directly elect nominees or candidates.

In the 2000 presidential election we had Al Gore win the popular vote, but our current President won the Electoral College. How does that make any sense? Well, I have a solution, and that solution involves getting rid of delegates’ altogether and having a direct democracy. Let the people vote for who they want to see as the next President of the United States without having gatekeepers.

It does not make sense that we have to elect a small number of select individuals to represent our state as a whole in the upcoming convention.

During the Democratic primaries the winner and loser get a proportion of the delegates no matter the outcome. And it’s worse on the Republican side. If a candidate wins the majority of votes, in most cases he or she gets all the delegates, regardless if one candidate got one less vote. How does that make sense? In a direct democracy it would be straight votes from the American people. If five million people vote for Barack Obama and five million plus two vote for Hillary Clinton, then Hillary wins the nomination. It’s that simple and the people have a voice. George Bush’s vote counts just the same as the creepy guy who stares at you while you eat dinner at a restaurant.

I read an article on the Internet that included how delegates play a role in the election besides voting for a candidate they endorse. The article, from the International Herald Tribune on February 10, stated that “In this supercharged atmosphere, the disputed delegate count is more than a statistical exercise - it can influence a candidate's ability to raise money, sway party leaders and get out the vote.” That seems highly unfair. People become manipulated by the numbers. They see that Hillary is in the lead and they hop on the bandwagon.

That’s not to mention super delegates, who consist of leaders of Congress and powerful political figures who may make or break one of the Democratic candidates this year. These super delegates confuse the situation even further. I’m told that these power figures will choose who they want to see win the nomination with no average Jane or Joe in mind. How does that make sense?

Let’s throw out the numbers, throw out the delegates, tell the super delegates to focus on the important issues inside the Beltway, and let the people live the American dream that we talk about by chooing the next leader from the ground up. Now that makes sense!

Jamie Gwynn '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies

Why Does Style Matter?

Why does style matter when you are electing a president? In the 2008 presidential election, Democratic hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are racing for the hot seat to lead this country through a time of “change.” But which one actually has what it takes to be the next president?

Both Obama and Clinton stand on similar platforms. Both support pulling out of the war in Iraq, both want better health care, both agree that change is needed for the U.S. But even if both said the same words, one may come off as a better candidate than the other. Why?
The answer is style. I am not referring to who looks better in blue, or who wore a better collared shirt to a debate, but rather the personal rhetorical style of a candidate based on their charisma, personality, and likeability.

Senator Barack Obama has been endorsed by members of former President John F. Kennedy’s family, including his daughter and his brother. J.F.K. was well-known and well-liked for his personality. Kennedy’s daughter Caroline even said that there was not another president that embodied that same charisma as her late father until Barack Obama. He has a general likeability, a down to earth personality, and a charismatic tone. Obama is seen as a change agent for the U.S., and it is probably safe to assume that everyone agrees that a change for this country is definitely what is needed.

Hillary Clinton has not been endorsed by such individuals because of her “style,” but rather her ability to be a good leader. The Kennedy family is not united on the endorsement front. Bobby Kennedy Jr., Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, and their sister Kerry all support Hillary Clinton. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend released a statement saying, “While I admire Senator Obama greatly, I have known Hillary for over 25 years and have seen first hand how she gets results.” Clinton has sometimes been seen as a closed person, a figurative stone wall. While Obama is earning his Kennedy endorsement for his charisma, Clinton is earning hers for her hard work and ability to get things done the right way.

Let’s all remember that it is only February, and I don’t want to be presumptuous and announce a winner just yet. Barack Obama has charisma and a great personality. He relates to people and is an inspiration to many. Hillary Clinton embodies leadership and the hard work and dedication that is needed to turn the United States of America right side up. Does their style really matter when it comes down to who will be elected? I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Amanda Cawley '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies

Text Messaging: The New Voting Nuisance

I have a cell phone and for the most part I hate every single thing about it. I get calls from people I don’t want to talk to. I get calls from people I want to talk to, but at the most inconvenient times. More importantly I get text messages. Keep in mind that I personally think that text messaging is probably one of the worst inventions ever. The typical American will spend minutes typing, with their thumbs, what they could have said in seconds with their mouths.

The biggest reason that I hate text messaging is because I do not have it included in my cell phone plan. This means that whenever a lazy friend of mine decides to send me one, I get charged almost a quarter for the damned thing.

A quarter isn’t much, but when people keep sending them to you, they can rack up an impressive amount on your bill. What’s even worse is now the service provider has sold my number to all sorts of telemarketers who text message me with silly offers. Even the cell phone company themselves will send me text messages about a new phone or service they are offering. And who pays for all these unwanted messages you may ask, well it’s me, the consumer, of course.

Then I heard a story about how political candidates and politics in general will start to text message people to remind them to vote. Okay, so that means that the millions of dollars spent in radio and television advertisements aren’t good enough. Nobody must read print anymore, because certainly no one is paying attention to the paper advertisements either.

I’ve always felt that campaigning was annoying to begin with, but now not only will candidates raise money from special interest groups to fund their campaigns, they will also be taking money right out of John Q. Public’s pocket when sending this bloody messages.

I wouldn’t care so much, if I wasn’t getting charged for it. Besides doesn’t this seem like overkill? You won’t be able to spit come 2008, without hitting a campaign poster. Do we really need to be pestered in this manner?

It also seems like an invasion of privacy. I bought a cell phone so my friends and family can get in touch with me at anytime anywhere. I didn’t buy one so politicians can spread their spin on it.

I commend the politicians for recognizing popular technological trends and wanting to take advantage of them. I commend them for reaching out to younger voters as well. However, they keep making the same mistakes. Younger voters are not going to vote because you inundate them with visual/textual reminders. You have to make voting worthwhile. You may be appealing to high school/ college aged students who use lots of text messaging but you still aren’t talking about anything that would interest them.

If anything annoying younger voters with reminders to vote, when they have no real interest or want to vote, will only discourage them further. Most people will just blow it off and complain, much like I am now, about how stupid these text messages are.

I will vote in 2008. I already know who it’s going to be. So everyone out there can stop trying to change my mind. Let me make one thing clear though; I have no interest in voting for Hillary Clinton, but if she sends me a text message that I get charged for, the gloves are coming off.

J. Lewis '07
Wilkes University
Communication Studies Major

Analysis of Anti-Hillary “1984” Commercial

(click title for video)

You may recall the 1984 Super bowl, not for its excellent athletics, but rather a particular commercial that aired during the game. In an attempt to portray the colorful, yet unexpected revolution in computers that was about to undergo, Macintosh ran a clever ad promoting the ingenuity of its new Apple Computer. A spin-off of George Orwell’s dark novel “1984”, the ad linked the evil imagery of Big Brother to the Microsoft Computer Corporation. In recent months, we have seen a similar advertisement emerge; this time it delves into the realm of electoral politics…

Hillary Clinton is the definite target of the contemporary version of this “1984” advertisement. As the first shot opens, the camera focuses downward on a transparent tunnel that bridges a vast, seemingly endless, almost Star-Wars like gap. The number “14” marks the bridge in a bland font on a wall. Colors are light blue and gray, suggesting a stark, lifeless environment. Crammed people can be seen marching forth through the tunnel. In an echo that subconsciously implies emptiness, Hillary’s voice can be heard lecturing the moving masses. “One month ago, I began a conversation with all of you”, she begins, “and so far, we haven’t stopped talking, and that’s really good.” The use of simple language makes it appear that Hillary is speaking to a group of innocent, vulnerable children. This is very persuasive in the fact that it suggests the people have been dumbed down and robbed of their intelligence. Further, the word “conversation” juxtaposed against blatant visual conformity draws an undeniable irony. Hillary comes off as being a deceptive and self-interested.

The camera cuts to the inside of one of the tunnels where the people wearing all- white clothing continue their drone-like march. The left wall is lined with television screens bearing Hillary’s lecturing face. Because the lens is zoomed, any chance for comfortable or familiar depth is collapsed.

For a split second, the camera reveals the first glimpse of color; the image of a women running. She is strong and blond. She wears “80’s” workout clothes, carries a sledgehammer, and is strangely wearing a barely noticeable ipod (I wonder if itunes had a hand in the creation of this commercial). The orange markings on her clothes represent the only warm colors used throughout the entire commercial. The rest are cold and sterile.

As the shot returns to a close-up of the peoples’ faces, Hillary continues to talk down to them. “I intend to keep telling you exactly where I stand on all the issues”, she explains. In the background, a distressing, mechanical beep can be subtly heard every few seconds. As the people walk by, their faces look the same. All heads are shaved, all tones are pale, all expressions are empty, and some of the folks are even wearing gasmasks. This re-enforces the mind-numbing danger of a world run by Hillary Clinton.

The camera turns its focus to a number of guards running down a hallway armed with clubs. The guards are dressed in black (the opposite of the people) and are wearing helmets that protect their heads. Glass shields hide their face in shadow, giving them nameless identities of darkness. There are no human-like characteristics for the audience to relate to. This capitalizes on the notion that people fear the unknown.

As the camera cuts back to the people walking, it shows a zoomed shot of feet marching in synchronicity. The march is not proud nor energetic, but rather forced and obedient. It is soon revealed that the people are marching toward a large room, where a screen displaying Hillary’s gaze oversees the order below. Wisely, the producers of this commercial chose to insert rather animated clips of Hillary speaking. This is tremendously effective because it not only shows a huge juxtaposition of intelligence between Hillary and her controlled people, but it undercuts her credibility on the deepest of levels. If they were to choose a bland expert of Hillary to display, the real-world audience would have ample room to breathe. A person could always rebut the commercial claiming that “she is more life-like in reality”. But now, her gestures of deep sincerity are cast in the light of ultimate deception. Even if she, herself rebuts the commercial in the most genuine way, a seed of mistrust will be linked to her mannerisms in the mind (conscious or subconscious) of the audience. Not to mention, the blue filter and off-centeredness of her face ad eerie imagery.

The woman continues to run down the hallway with the sledgehammer in her hands; this time she is being chased by guards. The symmetry of the camera (closed camera) provides the feelings of order and isolation. Hillary continues to lecture, “I don’t want people who already agree with me, I want honest, hard working, patriotic people who want to be part of a team”. The discourse here simply implies that people who agree with Hillary are not honest, hard working, nor patriotic. The uncomfortable beep continues.

As the guards get closer and closer to the woman, she begins to twirl her sledgehammer. The camera shows a close-up of Hillary’s blue, evil-looking face. With a cry of raw emotion from the woman, the sledgehammer is thrown through the air, and the screen explodes in a white burst. The shocked faces of the people are illuminated by a white mystical light as a wind blows their clothes. It is cinematic; as if a demon has just been destroyed. As the screen fades to white, the words, “On January 14^th, the Democratic Primary will begin. And you’ll see why 2008 won’t be like “1984”. A colorful apple then fades in with the words “BarackObama.com”.

It should be noted that throughout the entire commercial, the proximity of the camera gradually became closer to Hillary’s face (with the exception of the last shot in which the screen explodes). This is a tactic used by filmmakers to imply power. The closer the camera to the subject, the more power he or she is perceived to have. The feeling provided by camerawork here is that Hillary is gaining more and more power throughout the ad.

Overall, this was an incredibly persuasive commercial. With rhetorical tactics ranging from visual to verbal and from subtle to obvious, the clear message becomes engrained in the minds of the audience. Let’s hope that if Hillary wins the election of 2008, she’s not that power hungry.

Jim Feeney '07'

Wilkes University Student

Communications studies

Bring our troops home.

Dear Mr. President,

It is time to bring the troops out of Iraq not time to send more in. Every American is asking, when will it end? After four years, you would think our troops would be home, safe and sound. Yet here you are advocating sending more troops into the chaos. January 10, 2007 you asked for 20,000 more troops be sent into Iraq; part of your New Way Forward Plan. Last week that number grew to 30,000. When will you realize that enough is enough? It is time to bring the troops out of Iraq not time to send more in. How many innocent lives must be lost before you realize that you made a huge mistake sending us into this war? A strong President would have the courage to admit that he made a mistake and take action to correct it. You, Mr. President, on the other hand hide behind “the war on terrorism”; trying to make Americans believe that the only way to succeed is to continue this ludicrous fight; a fight, a battle, a war that no longer has a convincing cause. It is time to realize that many Americans no longer support the war. Many Americans, along with myself, wonder why we are continuing this fight. Can you truly answer that question, Mr. President? America is waiting…

A recent polls conducted by CBS News revealed that only 25% of Americans believe that the military can be truly effective in curbing the fight between Iraqis. Half of Americans believe that the war is getting worse and nearly three-fourths reported that they believe the war is going poorly. Two thirds oppose your troop surge, Mr. President, and 45% say that Congress should block funding for more troops in Iraq. As of the beginning of this month 505 billion dollars have been spent on this war and on March 10, 2007 you requested 3.2 billion more dollars to send troops into Iraq. These figures are becoming astronomical!

May I remind you of a speech that you gave May 1, 2003 aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, you said; “… my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.” You gave this speech four years ago and here you are now asking for more troops to be sent into Iraq. This war should have long been over.

Mr. President, the time is now. Stand up for our country and show America that you still believe what is right and what is wrong. Bring the troops home, it’s the right thing to do.

Jeanne Stapleton '07'
Wilkes University
Communications Studies

U.S. Past and Current Treatment of Immigrants Based on Greed, Not Need for Diversity

The controversial issue of immigration into the U.S. has been a recurring problem for many decades. Immigration seems to be a fresh “hot” topic due to constant media exposure. Yet, this hot topic that appeared President Bush’s State of the Union Address and many other outlets that discuss immigration as a “problem”, really have roots as far back as the late 1800’s.

There should be restrictions on the amount of people you allow into the U.S., because if immigration is not monitored then it will result in an overwhelming amount of foreigners jeopardizing a national identity. Also, for security reasons we should place limits on immigration. In reality history shows that the U.S. only places restrictions on those countries in which the U.S. does not have any allegiance to (which is understandable), but also even those countries who have had citizens here the U.S. Then, when the U.S. government no longer has use for them they deport them back to their countries.

In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act which suspended Chinese immigration, and indirectly endorsed definitions of race and class to define certain groups as “undesirable aliens”, which made them ineligible for entry citizenship. Defining a certain group of human beings as “undesirable aliens” closes the door of opportunity for the Chinese race, without any consideration. Now prior to this Act, there were German immigrants who lived in the U.S. and established their culture on U.S. soil by creating newspapers, schools, clubs, etc. The Germans were able to stay due to the fact that they were bi-lingual, and that was an advantage in trading. That’s fine, but what is the usual basis for the U.S. to choose between which immigrants are allowed, and which are not? I have yet to see that reasonable basis.

During World War I, the major concern for the U.S. was over shortages of farm labor. This heart-throbbing problem allowed the U.S. to call upon 76,802 Mexican workers temporarily. Six years following the war, the U.S. Border Patrol was established to “secure” the borders. In the 1930’s, which equals the Great Depression, thousands of Mexicans immigrants, and citizens were deported. Now where is the fairness? Mexicans are human beings just as U.S. citizens are, and to give them an opportunity just to take it back is cruel.

Today’s immigrants have families, and need a constant home to go to. They are not toys to be used and played with, and when you’re done you just put them down. This particular situation is like when you’re a baby, and your mother wiggles your food around in the air on a spoon until she gets ready to feed you. But as far as the Mexicans are concerned, they never really got a chance to be fed. Did I forget to mention that with the onset of World War II, the U. S. established the Bracero Program which forced Mexico to import more workers, because of the labor shortage scare? Well they did. During 1942-1967 Mexicans were forced to do the jobs that American citizens refused to, such as working on the farms. This Bracero “strong arm” Program provides temporary work for Mexican’s until the clock says “ding”, and then they are forced to travel back to their country. Unfortunately, it appears that the United Stated government has no regard for those citizens who may be seeking opportunity on the “the land of the free.” Besides, we have the authority to force these individuals out of their homeland to work for us, but after temporary work is over, we kick them out the door. It’s not fair to the Mexican population, especially those that have families to care for. This brings us to post WWII immigration conditions.

Those of you reading this blog, if you don’t know who Hazleton, PA Mayor Louis Barletta is, you will know after I’m done. Post-Gazette.com reported that on March 14, 2007, Barletta testified that his city needs 30 more police officers, because his priority is to establish laws to kick illegal immigrants out of town. He believes that Hazleton is becoming corrupted by violent crime, crowded schools, and a clogged emergency room at the city’s private hospital. He believed that “illegal aliens” are the blame for this list of problems that plague Hazleton, but admitted that he has no idea how many illegal citizens reside in Hazleton. So Mayor Barletta, you know that immigrants are the problem in your city, but you don’t know how many “illegal aliens” live in Hazleton? That seems quite contradictory. Barletta is a direct reflection of our country’s ability to toss immigrants out of our country without any regard to the fact that immigrants are individuals, and treated as so.

Two of the laws initiated by Barletta would punish businesses that hire illegal immigrants and the landlords who provide housing to them. Jose and Rosa Lechuga are legal immigrants who once owned a grocery store in Hazleton, PA before police damaged their store by parking police cruisers nearby in an attempt to intimidate the couple, and force them out of their store. The entire operation that involved removing immigrants out of Hazleton is unfair to those who are business owners, and those who have families. Barletta also believes that the city’s crime rate is caused by immigrants. Since 2000, Hazleton reported 8,575 felonies, and only 20 were linked to illegal immigrants. So Mr. Barletta, who is the blame for the other 8,555 felonies in the city of Hazleton?

Since 1882, when Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act until today our government has labeled immigrants as “undesirable aliens”, or “illegal aliens”, but in the same instances, needed immigrants for one reason or another. Labeling a group of individuals as “undesirable" insinuates that there is no need for foreign individuals. Labeling immigrants as aliens dehumanize their character, what they stand for, and places a cruel title on innocent people who are only seeking opportunity. Using individuals for their services and deporting them back to their country after the United States is done with them is not “cool.” These immigrants have families, jobs, seeking quality education, just like we are. That being said, either love immigrants or leave them alone, because how we treat our guests, is a direct reflection of what “the land of the free” stands for.

Carlton Homes '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies Major

How Much Do Celebrities Influence the Vote?

Right or wrong, in today’s society many in the younger generations look to celebrities as role models. Celebrities are very important to today’s society. Just take a look at how younger people get their news. Much of the time The Daily Show hosted by Jon Stewart (who was an actor in movies such as Big Daddy before starting his politically geared show) is watched as a primary source for news.

During election time celebrities are out in full force supporting their choice candidate. During the 2004 election, John Kerry visited Scranton, PA and was accompanied by supporter and “friend” Ben Affleck. At the rally there were many younger women there to see Ben Affleck (in fact he was the reason that I went) but while there I got to hear John Kerry and John Edwards speak and I was able to learn a few things about the candidates.

Celebrities are a great way to get the younger generation interested in politicians and what they believe in. Many consider this generation to be apathetic and not interested in what politicians say but if celebrities get them interested then what’s the problem.

Some criticize the use of celebrity in politics. In 2002 singer Kevin Richardson was invited to testify at a Congressional hearing about mountain top removal mining. Richardson, founder of his own environment charity called Just Within Reach, was criticized by Ohio Senator George Voinovich. Voinovich said that Richardson was not at all qualified to testify at the hearing. He stated, “This witness was put in as an afterthought because someone thought it would add to the glamour of the hearing and attract media attention.”

What’s wrong with media attention? The environmental issues being discussed at that hearing were important and the more media attention there was the more people knew about what the issues were. Richardson stated that was one of the major reasons he agreed to testify.

Other celebrities that have been invited to appear in Congress have been Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeve, Julia Roberts, and Sheryl Crow. Some celebrities don’t just appear before Congress or speak on behalf of other politicians, they become politicians themselves. Ronald Regan was an actor before becoming the 40th President of the United States. Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger and wrestler/actor Jesse Ventura both became governors. Sonny Bono also got into politics, and the singer was elected as a representative for California.

Celebrities are very influential and I encourage them to continue to support politicians and speak out on important issues. The younger generation looks up to celebrities and are influence by what they say. Celebrity endorsements are a great asset to the causes that they support and should be looked at as such. The effects that they have on the issues which they speak about can be very influential and lasting. Think about it, after being diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, Michael J. Fox became the spokesperson for stem-cell research and is still working to inform people on the subject.

Samantha Clarke '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies Major