Obama's Promise

During his recent State of the Union address President Obama vowed to veto any legislation containing earmarks, but not everyone is happy about it. His pledge could be seen as his attempt to reach out to the Republican party and gain more power and control over the now shifting House and Senate majorities.


According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid the pledge was the wrong move for the president. He has been quoted that he feels this is an effort on the part of the White House to gain more power and influence, saying that they have enough power as it is. Other Republicans have been trying to ban earmarks as a way to cut down on government spending and pork-barrel legislation.


Most Democrats and even a few Republicans argue that earmarks may not actually be a bad thing and that this is actually just a symbolic gesture, or meaningless, empty words that would change nothing in reality. Who knows if this is really just a ploy to play to the opposing party's base or something he had planned to push all along? This is one debate that no one has the answer too, though everyone in politics seems to believe that they do.

While both sides try to outdo the other with arguments and assertions that their way is right, the bigger picture seems to be getting lost. What really is best for the people and will the President's new vow actually help America? Earmarks or not, something needs to be done to reduce the United States' debts and put this country back on track economically. Surplus spending and adding extra funds and projects onto all the bills passing through government just does not seem like the best way to get this done. Maybe instead of fighting over who's right and wrong the time has come to actually look into what the best thing to do would be and attempt to make it happen.

Ron Franklin Fires Back!!!

Ron Franklin, who was recently fired from ESPN for his remarks to a female colleague at the Chick-fil-A Bowl, is sueing the network for what he says is wrongful termination. He claims that the reported remarks were inflated and taken out of context. Franklin claims that they had no ground for dismissal and that furthermore it was a private conversation reported on by a colleague.


However, instead of sueing to get his job back or for a public apology he is attempting only to recieve monetary compensation for unspecified damages and other fees. He denies that his comments were rude or hurtful and does not seem to see the need to apologize or admit that he was wrong. Franklin's lawyer said in a statement that he believed they had a good case and was confident that his client's view would be seen. Franklin believes that the company's decision to fire him was premature and did not take into account all of facts and the actual situation and dialogue since it was reported by a third party.


As we learned from our reading about rhetoric and discourse, though two parties have differences, today it seems like criticism or questioning of people's opinions are directly linked back to them and they get defensive. Instead of apologizing for the initial remark that offended his colleague or trying to explain himself, when she objected he merely returned with an unmentioned derogatory term. He did not try in any way to see her side of the discussion and refused to retract his statements to her, turning ugly when she took exception. Rather than listening and being civil about things, he took it personally and an ugly confrontation took place as a result. After being a major announcer for over 20 years he was fired for something that could have easily been resolved if he would have talked it out or not been so narrowminded in his thoughts.


Here's a link to the yahoo article covering the story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110120/ap_on_sp_co_ne/fbc_espn_announcer