#CorruptCharity

The Susan G. Komen Foundation cut their funding for Planned Parenthood last week and to no surprise, this didn't go unnoticed. People took to social media with an endless barrage of hate toward the most widely known, largest and best-funded breast cancer organization in the United States. Throughout the past 5 years, the Susan G. Komen Foundation has donated money for over 170,000 breast exams at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. What has changed? Why did they cut funding? And why did they reverse their decision in nearly 36 hours?

Right now, every finger points at Karen Handel, a Republican who at one time ran for governor in Georgia and then called for a "defunding" of Planned Parenthood. "I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood," said Handel.  With this controversy and public outcry, Handel immediately "stepped down," the $700,000 was instantly re-instated. The part that doesn't make sense to me, is the fact that this funding has been going on for the past 5 years. How did a women's organization for women, let this happen?

What ever happened to a secular organization not tainted by politics or a fictitious bible? Moral people make moral decisions, not decisions that hurt so many women by eliminating their breast cancer screenings. I can understand that there are many issues associated with Planned Parenthood, when it comes to their view on abortion but none of the $700,000 Komen was donating was even going to abortion. Not only did the Susan G. Komen Foundation lose a lot of money from potential donors, they lost my respect and they most certainly lost yours.

When two leading women's organizations butt heads the only people that suffer are the very women they are supposedly taking care of. It seems that this organization lacked a leader with common sense; didn't they know by cutting funding they would be cutting out support from a slew of their donors. Just look at the PR nightmare Komen started on #Twitter.

Bryan Calabro
Integrative Media/Communication Studies
Wilkes 2013

You Stay Classy Barack Obama: State of the Union 2012

Karl Marx 

If Obama’s theme for the State of the Union last year was “Innovation”, then this year’s big buzzword was most definitely “Fairness” or more specifically “Cooperation from everyone to achieve Fairness”. Obama’s stated many times throughout his hour speech that “if everyone does their fair share” the problems facing America such as jobs, immigration, debt, war, and even the environment will all be fixed.  A sentiment I understand, but know that in this political and societal climate might be too idealistic. I also thought the wording of this quote was dangerously similar to the defining principle from Marx’s communist manifesto “To each his own ability”. The statement proved a gutsy move for Obama who has often been criticized by the far right as a socialist putting him at a vulnerable place for the GOP to take advantage, especially with an election coming up in November.

Of course being a Junior in college soon about to enter the real world of a jobless, and debt ridden America, I was interested in Obama’s plan to increase the job market while fixing the sure to be devastating financial aid and student loan crisis that has already begun to plague this country. His solutions for financial aid were as usual vague but involved cutting off government assistance to any University who does not give all they can to students in need of financial aid. I was unsure of the effectiveness of this plan since it sounded like Obama was leaving the responsibility of financial aid directly on the school itself and not the government through loans and grants. I also thought this policy was definitely different from normal democratic beliefs in bigger government showing Obama’s bipartisan values which in itself is a comfort. His bold statement to tax millionaires 30 percent every year to help small businesses and job growth, delineated from his usual non-specifics in his State of the Union addresses and is commendable.

As usual, in this speech Obama’s prowess in articulation and personal presence was on full display, never once giving the audience the impression that he was reading from a teleprompter. In fact, upon re-watching I’m not sure if he really was or not. Lame jokes about “crying over spilled milk” aside (The First Lady’s face at that failed attempt at stand-up was absolutely priceless), Obama presented himself in his usual cool, calm and collected manner that we have come to know these past 4 years; a manner which usually comforts us but can also leave us wanting for more passion and anger for certain issues. I thought he also took the high road in not directly criticizing any of the GOP candidates now scrambling (somewhat ineloquently) for his position.  I guess he believed that there would be plenty of time for attacks later this year when either Mitt Romney or God forbid Rick Santorum becomes the official GOP candidate vying for the oval office.

Sarah Mitrotz

Communication Studies

Wilkes 2013

Bacon, Eggs & Politics: The League of Women Voter’s Annual Legislative Breakfast

In attendance were State Reps. Gerald Mullery, D-Newport Township; Karen Boback, R-Harveys Lake; Eddie Day Pashinski, D-Wilkes-Barre; Mike Carroll, D-Avoca; Tarah Toohil, R-Butler Township; Phyllis Mundy, D-Kingston; and state Sen. John Yudichak, D-Plymouth Township.

The questions began with a moderator chosen question on the recent ruling from the State Supreme Court, marking the recent redistricting of state legislative districts as unconstitutional.

It was not so much an opportunity to discuss state legislative policy or agendas, but more of an occasion for offering mere opinions on the redistricting process. Opinions ranged from soft disagreement to the ruling, and encouragement for more public support, all the way to condemning the commission and labeling Governor Corbett as a “school yard bully”, as Pashinski stated.

Other topics ranged from Education, to Marcellus Shale, to Voter ID. Out of all the participants, I would have to say Pashinski was by far the most partisan and offensive in his tone. He spoke a great deal about discourse between the aisles, and cited Republicans as part of the problem with the redistricting. Most of the others in attendance were friendlier with their opposition remarks, some of the advocating or offering antidotes to reach across the aisle.

All participants agreed on the need for environmental regulation in the drilling of Marcellus Shale, and a tax intended to fix and support infrastructure affected by the industry.

Towards the end of the breakfast, opinions differed on the need for Voter ID, and if requiring it shown at the polls on election day would decrease voter fraud, or disenfranchise voters. Carroll made the claim that not everyone has a photo ID.

The Democratic delegation was all in agreement against Voter ID, with one going so far as to say that being struck by lightning is more likely than Voter Fraud. Toohil responded by stating that a member of the general assembly has found that someone else voted for them when they showed up on Election Day. As it stands, photo ID is already required in most federal buildings to receive service. The Voter ID bill passed the general assembly and is on its way to the Senate.

The breakfast was a great opportunity to ask questions and meet the local state lawmakers. The League of Women Voter’s is a nonprofit nonpartisan group that gives the public educational opportunities on policy and lawmaker agendas.

Ian Foley
Political Science/Communication Studies
Wilkes 2014

A Superb State of the Union

On Tuesday, January 24, President Obama delivered his State of the Union Address to a joint session of Congress and the American people. The main theme of the speech was “An America Built to Last.” If we have learned anything about Barack Obama over the last five or so years, it is that he is an excellent speaker. That was evident again in this speech.

He began by referencing the end of the Iraq War. This is one of the few things he has accomplished in his first term that people give him credit for. The President also ended the speech by highlighting the mission he set forward to capture Osama bin Laden. By bookmarking the State of the Union Address with his two major accomplishments, many believe this was more of a campaign speech than a State of the Union Address. I disagree with this.

Although the President skipped over major issues such as the debt and deficit crisis, he touched on many issues the average American’s are most concerned about. The majority of people in this country belong to the middle class and are worried about the struggling economy. By addressing plans of job creation, I believe he got the attention of most people. His ideas seem to make sense. Bring back manufacturing jobs from oversees and make America the industrial powerhouse it once was. America is a country who can’t stop talking about freedom this and freedom that at every turn. Why not give Americans a fair shot to become successful in their own terms. What I think the President understands that the Republican candidates do not, is that middle class Americans are not envious of the one percent. We do not want them to give us their money as many of them probably worked hard to earn it. We simply want a chance to work in a decent paying job, pay a fair amount of taxes, and have the opportunity to live comfortably within our means.

The President stayed true to the things he has supported for years. He discussed American energy which has become very important to environmentally conscious generation of young voters. He also addressed the rising cost of a college education. For years, this generation has been told to go to college because without a higher education we cannot and will not succeed in America. Now that we have finished our education, we are strapped with hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt and we are no closer to obtaining a job than we would have been with a simple high school diploma.


There are some issues the President skipped over that the GOP has repeatedly pointed out. They are annoyed that Obama neglected to discuss the national debt and deficit crisis. However, I believe at this point in the recession, most if not all Americans are aware of the fiscal crisis that the entire global economy is facing right now. What good does it do to dwell on things that cannot be fixed within a one year period? Instead the President offered solutions to tangible problems that the American people deal with on a daily basis. Creating jobs is good for the economy. A boost in the American economy is good for the global economy. More money coming into America means less money we have to borrow from others.

Overall I appreciated the message of unity that the President try to convey. He gave an example of a military unit going out on a mission. They don’t care about race, gender, sexual orientation, or social class. It only matters that they are all Americans and they all must work together to find solutions to the problems that directly or not are negatively affecting our country as a whole. If he was trying to make this speech a campaign speech, it may have worked. I think the frustrated middle class appreciated that he fought for us. I think his blatant reprimanding of Congress’s inability to work together looked good for him. It took some blame we tend to place on the President and put it where it really deserves to be. One person can’t fix our problems by himself; our system doesn’t work that way. It’s a democracy not a dictatorship.

Kayla Mattioli 

Communication Studies

Wilkes 2012

Bye, Bye GOP 2012: A Perspective of a Young Voter

I am a 20 year old college student who is registered independent. I was never satisfied with either political party because I feel like all they do is fight and get nothing done for our country. I vote based on the individual and what he or she stands for.

The South Carolina debate on CNN was the first time I ever watched an entire debate. I was amused by the debate, and I was surprised what a theatrical production it was. The beginning introductions, where the candidates walked out, felt like a talk show. “Please welcome Regis Philbin and Kelly Ripa.” Regis and Kelly walk out on that cue and wave to the audience. The audience would be on their feet cheering and clapping really loud. The same was true for the beginning of the political debate. The moderator announced each candidate, and then they walked out waving as if they were celebrities. The audience applauded and cheered as the different candidates walked across the stage.

I could not believe that CNN would start a presidential debate by asking Gingrich the question about his ex-wife. I feel they should be more professional and get right down to the issues. Gingrich had the perfect response that shut the host right up. Looking at this debate from a talk show perspective, this is definitely how they would start a show. Jerry Springer would jump on the opportunity to start his show on a personal subject matter like this.

I was turned off by what some of the candidates had to say about Obama Care. Since my health care is covered under my parents until I’m 26, this is an topic that I’m really concerned about. Romney wants a complete repeal of Obama’s entire health care plan. Gingrich told the audience, “Let’s create jobs so they can pay for their own health care. Parents, elect us because your kids will have work and be able to move out of your house.” Up until this issue, I somewhat agreed with what Romney and Gingrich had to say. I will not support them now because of their positions on health care. Regardless of what they say about creating jobs, we know this is not going to happen. When many students graduate from college, they do not find a job. So many times I heard stories about students who had to go back and work at McDonald’s after college because they couldn’t find any other job. When I tell people that I’m a communications major, the first thing they tell me is how hard it is to find a job. One guy told me, “Good luck finding a job. My daughter got a degree in communications and she works at McDonald’s now.” Thousands of jobs for college students are not going to be created over night.

I don’t see the big deal about releasing tax returns. Gingrich said he released his an hour before the debate. Everyone is making a huge deal about Romney not releasing his taxes yet. Regardless if he does or not, that would never determine whether or not I would vote for him.

I really liked Rick Santorum in this particular debate. I think he spoke from his heart throughout and he is the closest to an “average Joe” on the ballot. His passion about pro-life issues was really inspiring. In his closing arguments, he said that they need to elect the best person to fight Obama and that person is the one who has the most contrast with him on the main issues.

Ron Paul seems to be getting a lot of young voters. In all honesty, I have no idea why. I feel he never really answers the questions. He always brings up that he was a doctor. I think he had a significant career, but there is no need to bring it up every five minutes. When asked about releasing tax returns, he said that he never will. He was completely honest, and no one really questioned him about the issue. Young voters probably like him because he is so direct and to the point. I really liked when Paul told Santorum that he is “overly sensitive.” I would never vote for him because he is too old to be President. After this debate, I don’t think I would vote for any of these four candidates.

Dominick Costantino

Communication Studies

Wilkes 2012

Mitt Romney & His Sly Smile

As a voter, Mitt Romney appears to have a second agenda that I don't trust. His sly smile of overconfidence after each remark makes him look outright arrogant. Romney desperately needs to consider how he looks to the middle class in particular. He recently made a bet in the amount of $10,000 which is utterly ridiculous that he proposes to have that much money to throw away on a bet when Americans are struggling to just make a living. Mind you, the same demographic that would find this bet offensive provides the majority of voters, silly Romney.

I find it "fishy" that he has yet to release his income tax information even after so many have brought the issue into the lime light. His delay in releasing his tax records leads me believe he has something to hide. I suspect that he is making a ridiculous amount of money by putting into practice every possible loop hole he can, to give himself his own personal tax break. How can we elect a president we can't even trust? As the state of the economy worsened, he helped himself become wealthier by paying a lower tax rate than most middle class Americans. This is not a leader. After the debate I found that Romney allegedly makes millions while paying only 15% income tax rate. Americans in the middle class make far less and yet they pay as much as 25%. Corruption has begun even before he has reached the White House.

I understand it is stereotypical of conservatives to be con gay rights; however, I cannot seem to wrap my mind around this bigotry. For Romney to claim that he believes in equal rights for homosexuals but does not support gay marriage is completely contradictory. Equal rights means that every citizen is given the same opportunities. To deny someone rights that are granted to another, like marriage for example, is not equal rights, plan and simple.

Although the primaries show that Romney is the most likely candidate to win the Republican nomination, I will not be voting in his favor unless he shapes up. I understand he needs to appeal to conservatives because that is his only chance in becoming the next president. However, to be a leader he needs to show Americans that he is in this race for their best interest and not his own.

Devoni Novak

Communication Studies 

Wilkes 2013

The No Spin Zone?

Over the past few years, the most prominent news source on cable television has become FOX News.  All other news outlets have decreased in viewers while FOX continues to grow.  The question that everybody should be asking is “why?”  For the past two weeks, I followed the number one rated news show on cable television, “The O’Reilly Factor,” hosted by Bill O’Reilly.  Bill O’Reilly has been in the broadcasting business for over thirty years, and his FOX show has been airing since 1996.  In the very beginning of every show, Bill starts off by saying, “CAUTION!  You are about to enter the ‘no spin zone’.”  Essentially, Bill is stating that during the entirety of his show, you will hear nothing but the political facts that have not been manipulated.  After one objectively watches Bill’s show after a while, they realize that it should be retitled “The All Spin Zone.”  For one hour every night, Bill O’Reilly forces his agenda upon the viewer by making harsh statements with very little logic or reasoning to back it up.  The show is pure opinion.  Bill does bring on people who oppose his views, but never gives them the time to effectively explain their argument.  When it comes to political spin, Bill O’Reilly is the cream of the crop.

“The Factor” is structured roughly the same way every night.  Bill starts off with his “Talking Points.”  He will pick out a big news story of the day, make a conclusion about that news story, then make the same conclusion about a broader topic.  For example, a news story had broken out about a school that forced a student to purchase a different lunch than what she had packed because it did not meet the guidelines set by U.S. Department of Agriculture.  Bill took this story and stated that the country is now a “nanny state.”  In other words, Bill claims that liberals want the government to regulate everything and want the government to tell us exactly what to do in all instances.  He even called President Obama the “nanny state champion.” Frankly, Bill’s conclusion is pure opinion.  It would make sense if he made the conclusion that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is going too far with their health guidelines.  Instead, Bill said the government is regulating everything Americans do.  It is a big illogical jump.

Generally, the 2012 presidential race would be the first or second story depending upon whether one of the candidates did something controversial that day.  Through watching many days of “The O’Reilly Factor,” the only two Republican candidates even mentioned were Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney.  If one is to look at Bill’s rhetoric hard enough, they will discover that he prefers Rick Santorum over Mitt Romney.  Bill was heard constantly stating that he thinks Mitt Romney is a “nice guy;” but when talking about Mitt’s conservatism, he claims Mitt does not feel it.  If this were a onetime passing comment, one would not think anything of it; however, Bill said these exact words on many different days, even asking interviewees if they agreed that Romney does not “feel it” when he talks about conservatism.  When it came to Santorum, the only bad press Bill gave him was when his millionaire campaign supporter made controversial statements about women and birth control.  Otherwise, Bill would make passing comments about knowing Rick, what a nice guy he is, and even saying that Rick at least feels his conservatism.

Bill tended to use very loaded language when talking about the Democratic Party and President Obama.  One thing people might not pick up on often is that Bill very rarely refers to President Obama with the “president” title.  Instead, he usually refers to him as “Mr. Obama.”  Simply by using the “Mr.” instead of “President,” Bill immediately places Barack Obama on a lower level by not referring to him by his proper title.  His loaded language was not all about Barack Obama.  Whenever referring to democrats or liberals, there was always a snarl or a sense of sarcasm in his voice.  During an interview with Leslie Marshall, in a very snarky fashion, Bill refered to her as a “flaming liberal.”  One of Bill’s favorite words on his show is “pinhead.”  Whenever there is somebody who does not agree with him or uses a different line of logic than he does, he refers to him as them as a “pinhead.”  He even has a segment at the very end of his show called “Pinhead or Patriot” in which he determines if someone who was in the news that day did something stupid.  However, with a title like “Pinhead or Patriot,” Bill is insinuating that if somebody does not live up to his definition of “patriot,” they are lacking in intelligence and is not “American.”

One of the most shocking aspects of “The O’Reilly Factor” is Bill’s interviews with other people.  Typically, Bill will have a Republican and Democrat on to argue an issue, or he will have just a Republican.  Nine times out of ten, when he talked to just a Republican, they were a “FOX News Contributor” with loyalties to the network.  When Bill would talk to the FOX News contributors, he would be much kinder, would allow them to talk more, and there was generally less arguing.  However, when there was a Republican and Democrat, Bill would use the spin technique, selectivity.  First, Bill would never let the Democrat completely explain their point of view.  Generally, he would cut them off before they could get to the point and berate them with his own point of view.  The other thing Bill might do is discuss the topic at hand with the Republican, but when he would get to the Democrat, he would argue something different.  For example, Bill had a discussion regarding whether substance addiction is a disease or a choice.  It became quite clear that Bill believes it is a choice considering the interviewee arguing that side was not berated.  However, when Bill talked to the person who believed it was a disease, Bill decided to argue with her about why she thinks medical marijuana should be legalized.  Bill then proceeded to yell at her about why medical marijuana is a bad idea and would barely let her speak.  This is selectivity because Bill is ignoring any facts that might disprove his beliefs.  He does not want his viewers to hear anything that is an alternate to “conservative values.”

Frankly, “The O’Reilly Factor” is one of the most spin filled television shows on television.  It is intended for extreme right-wing conservatives who believe that anything that does not bear the Republican crest is evil.  This show even goes as far to brainwash its viewers by claiming it is the “no spin zone.”  Bill O’Reilly does not hide the fact that he is extremely biased and right-wing leaning; however, the people who watch his show do not seem to understand that.  It would be my sheer hope that eventually people would realize how biased this show is and would understand that.  Until then, it will be shows like this that cause our country to be so politically split.

Trevor Kurtz
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2013