On The Tragedy in Boston, Media, and a Terrorism Definition

Today there was a terrible bombing in Boston, which injured over a hundred and killed at least three people. These are dangerous times we are living in, and who knows, one day living in this country may be akin to living in the Arab nations where violence surrounds and abounds.



Again the media and government seems almost split and contradictory it its collective personality. While they in the media within the immediate aftermath had no problem speculating between the political affiliations of the perpetrator, or perpetrators, i.e. left-wing or right-wing, any possibility of an organized terrorist connection, they seemed hesitant to address. Yet, again, at the same time, the imagined political ideals that such a person might have, were discussed. This frighteningly suggests and shows, not only a strong partisan divide in this country, but the extent of the hate or anger that one side feels towards another. I fear this divide and strife will only get worse, and indeed we have already seen civility and tolerance, which everyone demands but nobody practices, begin dissipating into a thing of the past. This is in both media and the general public, though there are those examples to the contrary. Lastly, I would like to point out this is based on the short coverage I did see and wasn’t in front of a TV or radio all day getting continual reports, so therefore any disagreement may be well founded for all I know.



Now I would like to address this word, “terrorism.” I find it a little odd, yet still a bit understandable, as to why the President and/or White House would be so hesitant to say the word or any variation thereof. Furthermore, after a brief Google search I found many definitions of terrorism, but not one concise meaning, which I found curious. One website explains this by suggesting that terrorism is a very relative term and is dependent on whom is using it. Also, one says it need be done especially as a means of coercion. However, I would like to humbly suggest a definition myself, that occurred to me when reflecting on all these acts as they occur all over the globe.



I was driving in my car a number years back, and I found myself stuck at a light behind a car which had a bumper sticker that read, “War is Terrorism.” Well, that kind of got this whole thought process going and I began to ponder the nature of war, and of terrorism, and how they might differ, if indeed they did. I have come to the conclusion that they do. My definition of terrorism would be, “Any act of violence, or attempted violence, designed to cause harm to a innocent person’s being, life, or property.” In short, terrorism is an act which targets the innocent. In addition, these acts usually testify to some cause and/or group. Furthermore, the terrorist seeks for his act to be infamous in the public eye as a spectacle, so he may use outlandish means or claim as many lives as they can in order to spread panic and fear among the innocent, which pleases the perpetrator through the chaos it brings down.



Alright, so maybe my definition isn’t as simple as I set out for it to be, but terror and the terrorist have these like traits when an act is labeled as one of, “terror.” Thus, at President Obama’s press conference, I was surprised at the absence of the word. He may have came out and said that it was by all means an act of terror, for there were innocent, unaware people targeted, but at the same time, perhaps he didn’t want to confuse people by making them think he was referring to, “organized terrorism.” That is a group like Al Qaida or Hamas without absolute proof first. Perhaps it’s time we change our definition of what terrorism is, when those not involved in any conflict and are thereby innocent, are targeted, hurt, or killed, by those employing warlike means.

I thank you all for your time and my prayers and thoughts go out to all those affected by today’s tragic events.

Love you Boston!

On The Debate Concerning Fox News, Cable News, and The Scope of Journalism

One is unable to go anywhere across the net, or watch TV, read newspapers or even join in everyday conversation without the topic of news coming up. News and broadcasting in one form or another have always played a part in life, but in today’s culture we find it taking on a much bigger central role than perhaps ever before and on a massive scale. A vast array of opinions have been formed concerning each news channel and the very nature of news. Thus, we find ourselves in a natural resulting conflict between the news organizations and viewership, as well as in a conversation about the duties or responsibilities of such powerhouses. Henceforth, debate on these matters becomes warranted. I would like to divulge right at the top that I am big fan of Fox News Channel and I feel it is a reliable source of information and adheres to most of my criterion concerning journalism. My reasoning for this is provided below.

However, before we get into this, there are a couple points I should acknowledge before we engage in the discussion. First and foremost is that Fox News isn’t my only source of information. If I watched Fox News all the time and didn’t question the information or look into it more deeply for myself then I wouldn’t be looking for news at all, but rather something to feed my bias and entertain. News should challenge and not enable if one truly seeks knowledge. I also tune into CNN, MSNBC and Headline News, a division of CNN, and it isn’t difficult to get a wide range of commentary and perspective on issues. There are at least two sides to every story, so for one to truly take a stand on an issue it is beneficial for the person to get all sides before making a judgment.

Now let us reflect on bias for a moment. Bias is an inevitability, its just how things work and it is indeed a filter through which we interpret the world. This is evident even in the most supposedly determined and empirical subjects of science as well as psychology, philosophy, ideology and the like. The very fact we can suppose hypothesis or form opinion suggests a transcendent bias. Thus, all news sources, no matter where you go are going to have bias; from MSNBC to the 700 Club. It’s a part of human condition and like I said before, an inevitability. Therefore, to claim otherwise is not honest and truthful of the facts which transcend news and concern the very nature of man.

So, knowing bias is represented in all media, and the fact media naturally draws constituents of similar tastes, this is in itself not enough to attack media on, for such truths are represented in any faction of society, any television station, government party, book, movie, website and piece of art. This being the case, we then have to provide other criteria in which to judge such news networks other than vilifying bias, for if we do, we vilify a part of ourselves. Now let us move onto journalism itself and quickly make a distinction between journalism and editorialism. They are both based in current events, but more freedom is given the editorialist than the journalist in terms of offering opinion. In fact, it could be stated pure journalism doesn’t editorialize at all, but rather presents raw information in a concise manner. However, when we consider the nature of the human mind and how it is represented in all actions, we find pure journalism is an impossibility, and what we are left with is varying degrees in relation to that mental abstraction of pure journalism.

Another question arises when considering these things and that is: What is the responsibility of journalism? I believe the answer is paradoxical to what one might think and most the responsibility lies not with the journalist, but rather with the readership or viewer. The journalist cannot make a person seek truth behind issues, but only provide information to the senses and it is up to the recipient of the information to formulate it, analyze it and juxtapose it with other viewpoints. The journalist is the means to the end and not the end itself, if one considers the end to be truth.

What does one look for in journalism, or editorialism then? This is the question and by the question we find it is personal in nature. Thus, I will answer what I look for in journalism. First, I look for all sides to be represented in some way. Not that someone needs to withhold their opinion, for we see above this is an improbability, but rather that it is advanced in the discussion or sharing of facts. Fox News is generally rather successful at doing this and one can see both sides of an issue relatively easy, but this is represented somewhat on other networks as well. The second criteria is where I find myself much at odds with many shows at other channels, and this criterion concerns disrespect. In this argumentative culture there a is great disrespect for those who draw other conclusions from the same information and any news network which is able to transcend this and offer both sides, without ridiculing one side or another with arbitrary insults, wins out in my book. Just because someone disagrees with another doesn’t give that other, supposedly bigger person or group, the right to ridicule. Fox is pretty successful at moving beyond this, though admittedly there are a couple shows I skip out on because it encroaches upon this line a little too much. I would mention specifics, but to whom or to what would it benefit? Nobody. I would just be encouraging the actions antipodal to my claim by doing such.

Next, it is the scope of news I look for. A lot of news shows now comment on other news shows, but to me it makes no sense. I could watch TMZ to get that. Therefore, news shows which offer up attacks to Bill O’Reilly or Keith Olbermann, while putting on the guise of a news show is to me disingenuous. Lastly, accuracy of information and its correct context upon which deeper meaning can be understood and because mistakes happen, a clarification when mistakes do happen. One should also be aware that a news mistake doesn’t necessarily equate to a lie or an intention to mislead. Thus, though I disagree with some of the things which are said on Fox News, concerning all this criteria it comes out above the rest with the CNN Networks running a close second. In the terms I have enumerated, it is successful in objectivity, representation, respect, contextual evidence, accuracy and a civility that surpasses everyone else (Again, I concede there are a couple programs I choose not to tune into unless they have a guest I particularly like, but such programs are also within their freedoms and rights to operate so I don’t hold a grudge; I just don’t tune in). These facts are also represented in Fox’s viewership which is the most equal between Republicans, Democrats and Independents when compared with any other cable news station. So to me Fox News is a great source of information (and concerning Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld, entertainment), but one needs to remember to look to other sources as well for verification. Otherwise, one is following a mob rather than the intellect.

On The Same Old Insane and Inane Blame Game

Today the DOW Jones industrial dropped it like its hot and crashed 777.68 points, the DOW finishing at 10365.45. As expected both candidates and parties came out swinging at the closing bell, hoping to score a TKO while the market already lay long motionless upon the canvas. It was the most shameful display from politicians and media that I have seen in a long time, perhaps ever and it is so utterly mind blowing in its stupidity that it is almost beyond belief. Indeed, if even I think it’s stupid; it’s pretty bad, considering I desecrated my brain long ago with barbiturate misuse. In fact, I didn’t really realize I had a problem until I forgot what a barbiturate was and tried abusing Barbasol with very unpleasant results, but that’s another blog entry altogether.


JP Morgan: "You’re a big huge company, why don’t you back that bank up? It’s my money Washington’s playing with; back that bank up!"


Though JP Morgan/Chase is acquiring banking firms at low cost and making out pretty well, much as they did during the Great Depression (I smell a conspiracy), the rest of us are sitting on the edge of our seats waiting for any solution to come out of Washington, wondering if we will keep our jobs and anxious to see if there will be such a thing as credit next week, though if we don’t have credit, there is a silver lining; at least we won’t have to put up with that Freecreditreport.com ass anymore. At least at this point, I for one don’t care whose fault it is (it’s Christopher Lambert’s) and am more concerned about what is being done or could be done on both sides of the fence to ensure the economic security of our nation and I don’t want to hear the bickering anymore, but rather some solutions.

Yet, the media is flooded with superficial, completely ridiculous, shallow attacks by both parties upon the opposing party and anyone with half a brain knows it. I actually heard on CNN some guy saying that McCain didn’t do enough to convince Republicans to vote on the bill, so the fault rests with him and the Republicans. What a completely stupid, inane globalization. Way to scrutinize just one side of the political spectrum there chief, without applying it to the opposite, like any other reasonable person would. You don’t deserve to be on Wolf Blitzer’s obtrusive Situation Room screen there sport, nor does Jack Cafferty for that matter, but then again, that’s just fodder for another blog. Here is the thing; if you are going to apply a principle to scrutinize people then that principle has to cover everyone, not just those who you are opposed to. Many Democrats didn’t vote for the bill either, yet you don’t hear Republicans blaming Pelosi for not pulling in enough Democratic votes, though the Republicans are saying that her speech beforehand where she tore into President Bush was unfair, which I agree with for a couple reasons, and it had worked in driving some Republicans away from voting aye. If this is the case, these individuals should not be allowed to sit in a senate chair ever again. Because someone’s words are harsh to you, you think that’s a reasonable catalyst to not give approval for a bill? What a way to put the country on the back burner and your personal feelings above the security of the nation. How petty, why don’t you all grow a pair?

We do this with congress all the time though, that is try and batter one party or another instead of viewing them as what they truthfully are, a group made up of individuals. If you want to attack someone, at least have the sense to attack someone individually on how they voted or what they have done, not according to what another constituent of their party said or did. I have done this before in the past and I readily admit it, however I now realize how dumb it truly is.

Another funny thing is that both the parties and presidential candidates claim that now is not the time for partisan politics, but then proceeded to attack each other in the exact same sentence. May I remind them that with the elections so close, now is not the time for such complete and explicit contradictions. With people like these getting elected, is it any wonder that any discourse about the goings on in Washington or in local government is met with a type of hate filled political polarization reminiscent of an almost racial tension from those who disagree with your views?

I think some people are lazy and would rather over characterize a group to attack, rather than actually have to learn something by looking up facts, doing a little research and applying it to the topic or the individual they are complaining or concerned about. It is much easier that way, because you can hold on blindly to your bias without ever really being challenged. To some people there is nothing worse than finding out that what you believed in so strongly was false and that you may have been wrong. It’s just easier for someone not to put themselves in that position where they might be challenged, for some would rather go with the mob rather than follow real solid data or logic.

Why is it that too often our first reaction when things go wrong is to point fingers? Though it may have relevance in the long term, in the short term, when real solutions and vital decisions have to be made, it is completely counterproductive to what needs to be accomplished. The thing is, people feel this situation is beyond their control so something or someone needs to be blamed. Yet, in this race to attach and associate blame, we frequently overlook who or what is truly responsible. Instead of a hurricane, its FEMA or President Bush; instead of two kids shooting up a school at Colombine, its movies, TV and Ramstein; instead of individual companies, its President Carter, Reagan, Bush, Democrats or Republicans; instead of Bristol Palin; its Sarah Palin, so on and so forth. If one is to be held accountable then yes, by all means hold them personally to account, but people just arbitrarily placing blame because of the letter after someone’s name is a flawed completely stupid way of thinking and it unfairly undermines the Republicans and Democrats who are actually hard at work doing great things or the great things they have already accomplished.

Truthfully, the most respectable thing I heard come out of anyone’s mouth today was from Arizona Senator Jon Kyl (R is the letter after his name), who when pressed for his thoughts on Democrats refused to push blame upon anyone only stating that people like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and other Democrats did do some good, hard work on the bill. Its attitudes like that we should be encouraging in society and especially amongst our political leaders.


Thank you for reading. Barbasol time!

On The Already Infamous Obama Lipstick on a Pig Comment

Try as I might, I just cannot wrap my mind around the possibility that this was just an innocent comment taken out of context. The media seems to have no problem defending Obama, but I have looked at this incident from all angles and I just cannot defend what was said in good conscience, nor can I be completely ignorant of its meaning. I been trying to spin this in every way possible, but even if I give Obama the benefit of the doubt, I still come to the conclusion that what was said was a huge lapse in judgment. Furthermore, his apparent refusal to apologize for the statement is equally disturbing and gives credence to my thought that the unfortunate utterance was, indeed, intended.

On Tuesday night in Virginia during a town-hall style gathering for Obama, he said, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig.” The response of the crowd was one of laughter and thunderous applause. My response was quite different; that Obama just may have flushed his political aspirations down the crapper. Surely, this possible Commander-in-Chief couldn’t be that ignorant of what he just said, right? Right? I think any reasonable person, who truly didn’t mean to say what was said and misspoke, would see the crowds reaction, how it was received and quickly retract the statement, adding something to the likes of, “Whoa, I didn’t mean it that way, my bad,” or something similar. This of course was not the case and today he refused to apologize for the statement, saying that the media twisted it, as if drawing the conclusion that it was an attack on Sarah Palin was a completely illogical one.

Let us all assume for a moment that this comment wasn’t made right on the heels of the RNC, where Sarah Palin mentioned her famous “pitbull in lipstick” line. Let us all say, rather, that it was made six months down the road, assuming we had the time, which we don’t because of the election in November. If this was the case though, I could see Obama’s argument that it was taken out of context or that people were overreacting and being hypersensitive. However, this is NOT the case. Instead, it hasn’t even been a week since Palin’s comment, where she mentioned both an animal and lipstick. Then, at this event, Obama mentions an animal and lipstick and we are expected to believe that it was an innocent coincidence.

I was shocked, because I thought it was stupid, and surely Obama was smarter then that, but with how the media is writing it off, he may have been brilliant after all. People say his comment was in context and that’s why he couldn’t have meant it in such a way. I say, of course it was in context! He is an eloquent politician, and with his skill in dodging questions, I can completely see how he intended to say what he was feeling and have the ability to back out of it at any time because of this “in context” loophole. Truth is, he obviously wasn’t going to come out and say, “Sarah Palin is a pig.” No, Obama is more subtle and smarter than that and everyone has bought it hook line and sinker.

We should also take a look at the crowd surrounding him. They, more than anybody watching on TV, would understand the context, and their response is very telling. They completely knew what he was saying, who it was to and why. They even stood up laughing and cheering, but we the public and media are being unreasonable when thinking this way? Obama didn’t even apologize to those who may have been offended, nor did he apologize to Sarah Palin for the comment. If I had said something on a national stage and didn’t mean how it was being interpreted, I would be so horrified that my statement was being perceived in such a way I would be out in front of the media ASAP attempting to make amends and retracting or clarifying my statement. However, this is not what Obama is doing, rather he is just blaming the media and public for mishearing the exact words that came out of his mouth.

Another argument being used to defend Obama is what could he have possibly gained by saying such a thing? Why would he say it? It makes no political sense, so therefore anyone who draws the conclusion that Obama meant it in a derogatory way is stupid. You can’t be serious! The conclusion is completely based in logic and reason, and it is not as if his words were really twisted; no it is word for word what he said himself. So what reason would he have for saying it? I doubt if Obama was still ahead in the polls this would have came out of his mouth at all. Truth is, he is beginning to panic and is feeling under pressure by Sarah Palin’s popularity and the Republican party gaining ground in the polls. He is angry and is responding just like millions and millions of other American’s would. His judgment is decreasing as his anger increases and if I were him and truly repentant I would be jumping at the chance to take it back, but he won’t because he is pissed and meant exactly what he said.

To which of us has this never happened before? I have said several things in anger that I wish I could take back, but let us remember that just because it is said in anger doesn’t give anyone an excuse for uttering such things. No, the simple fact is that Obama is getting nervous and his tact is going out the window and I believe it will continue to happen if the Republicans keep improving in the polls. It was really quite genius of Obama if you think about it, he completely and explicitly expressed himself, and is brilliantly able to flip the blame elsewhere. Anyway you slice it though, what occurred was a huge lapse in judgment. It could also be said that it gives us real insight into Obama’s character and how he would respond under pressure. Yes, what he said is truly an old southern saying, but one Obama stretched and used to his advantage to express himself, his true feelings about Palin, and still have the ability to back out of his statement whenever anyone raised the issue. He must think people are stupid, but they aren’t and people are seeing through it, even if the media doesn’t want to.

On Breaking News Over at BSNBC

Due recent in depth studies by the federal government, it has come to my attention that my readers are the most brilliant, good looking people in the world (keep reading and recommend to your friends!) and of this fact I am truly convinced. Therefore, it probably has not escaped your attention that I have been rather critical of MSNBC within my past blogish musings. Well, today I actually have something positive to say about the almost obtrusively bias cable network.

Honestly, the possibility that I would live to see the day where MSNBC would exercise sound judgment in upholding some kind of journalistic integrity has never even occurred to me. Indeed, I suspected the lost city of Atlantis would arise from the ocean depths before such an event would ever occur; her unstoppable robot armies marching across the surface of the globe, conquering every nation in her path.

Over the weekend it was announced that Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann would be stepping down as anchors from the election coverage and go back behind the commentary desk where they belong. As much as I hate to admit it, due to my disagreements with the men, they do have a right to express their views, but I believe an anchor position requires a tact and professionalism which lies beyond what Matthews and Olbermann were willing to provide to their audience. The need for quality reporting is especially true when one is covering such an important event like a political convention or election.

Even amongst channels like CNN and Fox News, there are traits of political bias. However, there are a couple important differences between MSNBC, CNN and Fox News. The latter two keeps editorial commentators separate from anchor roles and provide ample guests and dialog along both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for MSNBC. Often, only the Democratic viewpoints are represented and vital information concerning the issues is frequently omitted.

I, of course, have been complaining endlessly within my blog, e-mails to MSNBC and the Huffington Post (Who, by the way, felt my comments weren’t worth posting; probably because I wasn’t defecating on right wing ideology.) and apparently many others were as well, including those who actually work for NBC and MSNBC. The network finally took a couple steps to improve their election programming, but because there continually seems to be this innate underlying motif of misinformation, I still find them unbearable to watch. I will commend them though for removing Matthews and Olbermann from the anchor position. It’s a step in the right direction. The most amazing thing about this situation is that it gives a little confirmation to some of my past blog articles. So, perhaps my blog isn’t complete BS after all, though I do concede certainly most of it is. I don’t know whether to be encouraged by this or scared. Very scared.

On The Media Attacks of Sarah Palin

While watching the news over the last couple days, I have to say I am quite shocked at the media’s rather unfair and cruel coverage of Sarah Palin, especially concerning her daughter. I thought when I quit watching MSNBC I could expect to get better coverage of events happening in our world, however this was not the case. Media is so bad that even investigative reporting seems to be taking a back seat to the queries of the average individual. You would think, since journalists are “professional” that they would want to give their audience a full understanding of events and facts. Sadly, I believe I am going to have to quit watching the news and find other sources other than televised news coverage.

The media has been abuzz with the investigation of Sarah Palin in Alaska for supposedly using her power to have Commissioner Walt Monegan fired; seemingly, because he wouldn't fire Mike Wooten, the ex-husband of her sister. Sounds kind of bad, granted, but I felt there was a vital part to the story that was missing concerning the character of this person who was fired. Things like this person’s name, or what issues he was cited for were not readily available from cable news. These details were even hinted on over at CNN by Wolf Blitzer, but he instead actually said, “I won’t get into specifics.” That is your job Wolf, to give people specifics of the events you are covering and if your not going to do that then you should cease to “cover” them at all.

I could reach the conclusion that this was just politically bias on their part, and maybe in their case it was, but Fox News was no better. A channel that leans to the right, you would think, would offer up this information, but I haven’t heard a thing about it. To find out about this person, I actually had to go to the Huffington Post and The Anchorage Daily News. A regional paper and one of the most blinding biased news sources available that frequently omits information and that too often, to support its own political ideals, trespasses over things like common decency and professionalism, had more information than that of CNN and FOX.

Truth be told I would want this guy fired from the State Troopers as well. This officer of the law, one Mike Wooten, has been accused of using a taser on his 11 year old stepson, Sarah Palin’s nephew, in addition to illegally killing a moose, drinking beer in his patrol car, and telling friends his father-in-law would, “eat a f’ing bullet” if he helped his daughter get an attorney. He also threatened Governor Palin and he is lucky he just got fired and isn’t under investigation for child abuse, poaching, drunk driving and uttering a death threat.

Come on! A tasering of an 11 year old? If this was on Jackass, ok I wouldn't see such a problem, but this shows a lack of judgment, compassion and logic that should be required for an officer of the law to demonstrate. There are rules of conduct for cops and I believe tasering an 11 year old boy breaches several. However this isn’t all he has been accused of. In addition to allegations of domestic violence, he, after joining the force, had been reprimanded for damaging a state vehicle, speeding, unsafe lane changes, following too closely, not using a turn signal, personal cell phone calls, a speeding ticket, which he was suspened for, and received a memo highlighting his tardiness and conducting personal business while he was on duty.

It doesn’t excuse any illegal activity on Sarah Palin’s part, but what I want to know is to what degree a Governor can influence the firing of someone working within a State ran agency before it becomes illegal. I thought one of the duties of a Governor was to govern over the state and its various agencies; including the State Troopers. It is a cops duty to be a representative of the law, and this guy was obviously the complete antithesis of what a cop should be and I would want him fired too. It would be nice if details like these were provided in media reports, not to mention that these charges were only brought against Palin by former Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan after she had him fired, which makes the charges suspect because he didn’t feel the need to bring up these charges while under the States payroll.

These concerns are legit and should be investigated, which Palin is welcoming as well. However, what isn’t is the pregnancy of Palin’s 17 year old daughter Bristol. This is absolutely disgusting how the media is treating this. Obama showed his civility and needs to be commended when he took the moral high road above the media saying, “People's families are off limits. People's children are especially off limits. They have no relevancy and I strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18."

I agree with Obama and find it deplorable when someone’s political bias overrides ones human compassion. Bristol has to live with her own decisions and the consequences for them, and those decisions that were made were personal in nature. The responsibility falls on her alone and the media should stay away, or as Obama says, “back off,” because it isn’t like this girl has jumped in the public eye of her own accord and to drag her through the mud of media scrutiny is completely unwarranted and unfair. She is going to have enough challenges and hardship raising her child, now she has to worry about damaging her mother’s career. That is sick and twisted and people should turn their backs on any news organization that fails to think as real human beings and tries to twist this into something political. It appears that journalistic integrity is getting impossible to find nowadays.

There are those who are Democrats and supposed supporters of Obama that are continuing in this debate, despite Obama coming out strongly against it. It goes to show that such people don’t really support Obama nor the Democratic party, who have both come out against attacks on Palin based on this, but really only serve to bash anything that is Republican. I have heard such people attack the Republican party and Palin, saying that it is hypocritical since the Republican party takes the moral high ground. As opposed to what? Isn’t that what every party tries, or should try to do, emphasize morality? If you don’t you should not be in office. People may differ on the definition of morality between the parties in some aspects, but to discredit a party as a whole, Democrat or Republican, or group of people and ideal because someone in relation to a politician makes a mistake, is to me so stupid that I have no patience for it. Nor do I have patience for these “journalists” who seem more like ambulance chasers, rejoicing in the misfortune and hardship of others. I loath such people and at the risk of sounding cliché, they should all be ashamed. I for one would find it difficult to sleep at night if I acted in such a way.

What I also find offensive is this idea out there amongst some of the media that because her daughter is pregnant, that she is a horrible mother and if she can’t control even her family, how could she be expected to control the government? One of my hero’s Theodore Roosevelt put it best concerning his unruly daughter Alice, who was 100 fold worse than this situation with Bristol, when he said, “"I can either run the country or I can control Alice. I cannot possibly do both." Parents nowadays are unfairly ridiculed for the actions of their offspring. This is ridiculous and it must be remembered that what it really comes down to is personal responsibility and I wonder if any of these people attacking Palin concerning her daughter have any teenagers of their own. I doubt it.

In conclusion, another factor we don’t add in is the sons/daughters of cops/politicians/judges/religious leaders factor. It is normal for every kid to rebel, but more so when a parent has a position of authority amongst the civilian population. This is just how it goes and if you doubt me, watch Footloose sometime. Thank you for reading.

On Brandon's Letter to MSNBC

Just to share with you all I am kind of stuck between Obama and McCain at the moment and like to bounce between news channels to get the most coverage out of all sides of the political spectrum that I can. While watching MSNBC’s coverage of John McCain’s VP pick of Sarah Palin I saw a headline on the ticker underneath that read, “How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?" This was so horribly bias and appauling to me that I decided to write a letter. Please understand I would have much rather been drinking or something, but I felt pretty passionately about it. I have posted the letter here to not only express my thoughts, but for your consideration. Is MSNBC going to read it? Doubt it, but I feel better.



Hello,

First off, I would like to apologize to whosever job it is to read this e-mail. Please know that this e-mail is addressed to the channel and not to you personally. I don't know you, but I am sure your very nice so please bear with me. I was watching your news coverage today of McCain's VP pick of Sarah Palin and saw that under the breaking news headline, "How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?" Now I am an on the fence voter, stuck firmly between Obama and McCain; probably till election day, when I will judge the two accordingly before I pull the lever. I was horribly disappointed that a "professional" news network would put something like that under breaking news. It was such a completely disgusting bias slam the likes of which I have never seen. In fact, I don't recall anything even remotely close to that. Indeed, within local, national, cable, international, CNN, FOX News, SKY, BBC, Headline News, Newspapers, Magazines and radio, I have never witnessed or heard of a display so unprofessional before in pop media.

Prior to this election I defended MSNBC against criticism for being too bias, but after this election coverage, no more. In debate or conversation from here on out I will supply ample evidence to why your channel, or any NBC affiliate should not be watched for the news, even on the local level. You may say I am just one insignificant guy and it really doesn't matter, well let me assure you that if I am thinking it, trust me, a lot of others are as well. I have tried to give NBC the benefit of the doubt because I like to hear all sides of the issues so that I may make an educated decision on my own, however your channels will be a source of "information" no longer because it is clear you don't represent both sides, and when you do you are so condescending you don't leave it up to your viewers to make their own decisions. Its shameless.

CNN and FOX will now be my sources for news. Even the shows I used to enjoy like Morning Joe I will not watch anymore because I cannot trust NBC to give good, fair, complete coverage. You owe your viewers, Palin, McCain and even the Obama campaign an apology because it even reflects on them; you obviously leaning democratic. If the Obama campaign acts as you do, which I have not perceived as of yet, but if they do, its a sure bet for McCain, but I don't think I will have to worry about that because even Obama, McCains true political rival, is 100 fold more civil than NBC is. Now I am a high school drop out, got my GED and work a low paying job, so when I see such blatant bias unprofessional news coverage, if you can call it news, you know it is truly pathetic and I can't believe this would slip by so many "educated" people and it would be supported. You have a responsibility if you call yourself a news channel to present the facts in a way that people can make up their own minds, but you fail and cease to do so willingly and that is disgusting. Yeah, go ahead and keep on attacking CNN and FOX News, but they are more professional than any NBC channel will ever be. How can I be so sure that every channel your affiliated with represents the news in such a way? I know because, not only have I seen certain shows on your network where this is clearly manifest, but also because of the Palin "headline," I cannot trust any information you provide and I will be sure to share that with anyone I have a discussion about news with.

Again I apologize to the reader of this e-mail and I truly hope YOU have a good day and I apologize for my rant. As for your bosses, they have lost a viewer for good unless they offer a station wide apology. You and me both know that is not going to happen.

Sincerely,

Brandon J. Myhre

Seattle, Washington

On MSNBC, RNC and The MMVIII DNC: D3

I feel that one must give credit where credit is due, and with the third day of the Democratic National Convention, the Democrats do deserve a little. This was by far their most appealing day, and they nailed it with speeches from former President Bill Clinton and Obama's VP choice Joseph Biden. These two speeches were the definite highlight of the DNC thus far and in terms of political bounce, may even surpass Obama's speech at Invesco Stadium. I tuned into the festivities at the beginning of day three, and really tuned out for most of it till the highly anticipated moment when Clinton and Biden would step before the podium. However, there was one odd thing I would like to address concerning coverage of the convention.

The news channel's paused for the Pledge of Allegiance and the Star Spangled Banner at the start of day three, which is highly respectable. CNN and Fox News both stopped there coverage as the men and women of the Democratic National Convention gave honor to the country that they represent. Sadly, MSNBC opted to focus on Keith Olbermann instead of the pledge and National Anthem because what he had to say obviously couldn’t wait. Though to be fair what was occurring on the floor was still visible through a small window located at the left of the screen. Maybe it is me, but I found this to be pretty distasteful, if not completely disrespectful. Thing is, I used to watch MSNBC a lot, because I felt they gave pretty fair news coverage. However, it has deteriorated considerably and what I once considered to be one of my favorite news journalists, Chris Matthews, has really shown how biased he really is during their "Decision 2008" coverage. Matthews and Olbermann even go so far as to attack Democratic strategists and the like for appearing on Fox News. Now, in my eyes, MSNBC’s journalistic integrity is nil. Perhaps they are nice guys off the TV, I don’t know, but how they have been conducting the news over at MSNBC is just deplorable.

The DNC, as well as the upcoming RNC, are set up to be so spectacular and elaborate, that it will give the Super Bowl a run for its money. In fact, I am surprised they are not calling the current ongoing convention, "DNC MMVIII." The purpose for this is to build up ones emotion by appealing to the senses through various forms of visual and audio stimuli. We see this plot a lot within the arts, in things like concerts, movies, and plays. Obviously, it isn’t just confined to a creative aesthetic expression anymore, but rather to serve a purpose and it certainly does now within spectator sports and in the political arena. Those who have organized the DNC and RNC know this and it has become the core of the conventions because they realize that it is more beneficial to initiate an emotional response from the delegates and viewing audience, rather than to focus on, or provoke, any serious reflection, thought or juxtaposition of the candidates and the key issues. Certainly, we can look forward to seeing this ploy utilized later when Barack Obama takes the stage at Invesco.

Center stage on the evening of the third day of DNC, however, belonged to Bill Clinton and Joseph Biden. As Bill took the stage and the cameras cut to Michelle Obama, I couldn't help but think that she looked a little nervous and awfully perturbed. Knowing what I know now, considering the Oscar worthy performance, I would have told Mrs. Obama to relax; that Clinton knows what he is doing and can lie with the best of them. Though, that really depends on your definition of what "lie" is. Cheap shot, yes I know, but it had to be done. I feel that Bill did a much better job on his speech than Hillary did at hers, but just like Hillary, I don't think Bill was really sincere. Not so much because of what he said last night, but because of what he HAS said in the past and his actions tomorrow; high tailing it out of Denver. This pretty much sums up Bill's feelings towards Obama, which are further confirmed in my mind by Michelle Obama's reaction to Clinton. Bill had no choice, he needed to do it for the good of the Democratic party, to protect his legacy, and for the good of his wife’s future political career. I believe he was successful concerning the speeches powerful delivery and what it was he had to accomplish. Republicans are going to have to try and counter the momentum with McCain's VP choice and the RNC.

I may think Clinton gave a great speech, but I by no means agree with some of his points. He claims that the current administration is advocating an "assault on science," which I feel to be completely absurd. This claim is really only based on three things. One, of course, is that by pushing for more oil drilling they are hindering the expansion of different forms of energy, yet they leave out that this current administration has spent more money on developing alternative energy than any other administration. Second, decreased funding for space exploration. Enough said. Third, stem cell research. Yet science, which Bush is assaulting, is still advancing and has just discovered they may be able to gather stem cells from adults rather than embryo's. It is amazing that they were able to make that discovery while the science “war” rages. Surely, the scientists must be extremely dedicated.

He stated that our unilateralism has damaged our relationships abroad. I believe this statement to be an unfair generalization of what has really occurred in the world during the Bush administration. I do not believe that leadership should be based on intimidation, yet diplomacy seems to be a form of timidity in times of danger. I believe, for the most part, that we can classify Clinton's administration for being too timid, for when they should have rose up against the enemies who were attacking our citizens on our soil and fought against those detonating bombs among our military and embassies overseas. We only went into Iraq when the UN dropped the ball and I feel at the time it was a reasonable call to make. Were there mistakes? Hell yes! Not everything that happened concerning Iraq went according to plan, but it is easy to criticize, when we the public can easily change our minds on issues and don't have a country under us to defend. Theodore Roosevelt provided one of my favorite quotes in a speech given April 23, 1910:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."


A couple other points he made were on AIDS and the military. Clinton told the delegates, and Chevy Chase who was in attendance, that Obama would continue the battle against HIV and AIDS at home and across the world. An effort attributed to Bush that started in 2005 with the passing of a 2.9 Billion dollar program to fight the disease. Secondly, Clinton said that Obama would strengthen our military, yet I don't really know how that is possible since Obama himself stated that he would “slow our development of future combat systems.” Finally, Clinton told the audience that Obama was ready to lead and that under him America would develop back into what it was during the Clinton administration. It was such a great speech with such great hype, that despite all the disagreements I have with Clinton and what he said, I almost wanted forget about the issues when it comes to the individuals of Barack Obama and John McCain.

Finally, it was Biden's turn and he himself provided a great speech, which played off the momentum of Clinton and it too was near perfect in its delivery. However, I found it was packed full of political messages and attacks that made no sense to me. That is not to say he didn't raise some good points. I think he did and he made a much better case against McCain than anyone else has, but there are a number things I also had issue with. Biden started out by introducing his mother, which was sweet, and told the crowd that he was raised under the principle that one was defined by honor, redeemed by loyalty and that bravery lives in every heart. She sounds like a great woman and its too bad that she isn't running considering how her son has manifest these principles in his own life, not only in his relationship with John McCain, but also lying on documents and plagiarizing other political speeches, which Barack Obama himself did when he asked America if they were better off since Bush. This is an almost verbatim rip-off of President Reagan, who posed one of the most provocative questions in American political history, when in 1980 he asked the American public in a debate with Jimmy Carter, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" This one question cost Jimmy Carter his second term.

I do not like it when Politicians contradict themselves. Biden stated that his mother taught him that anyone can make it if you just try hard enough and that this was the American dream. Yet, this is not the kind of message we hear from the Democratic party. Rather, Biden during the remainder of his speech, and in fact the whole party in general, seem to push the idea that opportunity is rare in this country and I just don't see the evidence for that. I do see evidence though that this country offers more opportunity than any other place on the face of the globe. Biden continued saying that Obama moved to Chicago after turning down a job on Wall Street, seemingly based on his concern for others. This has been stated several times in promoting the Obama cause, yet I still have not found out exactly what job he supposedly turned down. I am sure that Obama helped a lot of people in Chicago, I am not refuting that, but to suggest that he didn't take his own political and professional career into account when making the move makes absolutely no sense. Furthermore, with the picture they are painting, I don't know why I would want to vote for someone who makes rash decisions despite loads of data suggesting you should do otherwise. That doesn't sound appealing to me in the context of a President.

America is less secure and more isolated than EVER before, Biden said. He forgets little details and things like…, oh the American Revolution for instance. Also, the statement, for some reason, doesn’t take into account that we have not been attacked again since 9/11. I consider that a sign that we are very secure, but that’s just me. While listening to the DNC speeches, it becomes clear that Democrats are the anti-war party, and really who wouldn't want to be anti- war? Well, it seems they are anti-war except when it comes to Russia, then all the anti-war and diplomacy talk on the democratic side begins to break down. Then Biden attacks Bush saying that he is not doing enough and needs to take a stand against Russia, because diplomatic channels aren’t apparently enough.

Dah! Russia is not a country you rush into war with. Are you nuts? Yes, hold them accountable, but don't say we haven't done anything, when your candidate won't even interrupt his golf game to go on TV to condemn Russia. Instead, its McCain who was on the TV that very morning condemning the invasion of Georgia. They say that we need diplomacy in the world with our enemies, yet make an exception with Russia. Why? Well, obviously because Bush is moving along those channels and it all of a sudden becomes very wrong. I know amongst all these different nations there are separate issues and variables when it comes to foreign relations, but it seems like complete lunacy that when Bush is practicing something they clearly advocate and push in an almost absolute context, they reverse their opinion and somehow make a distinction between the cited situation and their innate policy. This is a complete political spin designed to make one party look bad, the other good and nothing more. There is no consistency in their thinking and that’s what I have an issue with. The only variables that seem to determine if something is good or bad is if it is beneficial for their party and if the opposite party is engaging in it. This goes with the Republicans too. This is crap and there has to be a smarter way to practice politics!

Another thing Biden cited was how the Bush administration has shifted its plan to Barack Obama's concerning negotiations with Iran. What they fail to mention is the variable of preconditions, which makes the two examples diametrically different. We as the United States of America need to portray an image of authority if we really want to influence countries like Iran. How are we supposed to do that if we cower to any conditions an opposing violent country such as Iran puts forth. In the eyes of their own government, media and people, by propaganda, they will see America as weak, which will be a large boost to their cause, and diminish the effect and influence of ours. It is irresponsible to give countries like Iran undeserved credit and assume that they will act peacefully and receive us in a civil manner. It is not going to happen.

Lastly, Biden spoke concerning the war in Iraq, that the Bush administration has again shifted its plan to Barack Obama's. This comes down to conditions too. Again, the two policies are completely different from each other. The Obama plan has a flat, concrete timeline that ignores any conditions on the ground, while the Bush plan calls for a conditions based withdraw. That is a HUGE difference. To me the question that comes to mind when hearing this is if they are really that stupid that they don't know these things or if they are omitting these details from the American people to accomplish their own goals. Either way its horrible, but I think the latter is correct. On a positive note though; at least with either plan the troops get closer and closer to coming home.

Anyways, Biden did raise a couple arguments against McCain that I agree with. One of those is taxes. Coming from a family that owns a small business and is in the highest tax bracket, where just about 40% of our income goes back into the pockets of the federal government; I really have to wonder why families in similar situations, for our family knows of quite a few, aren't getting any help concerning taxs. The McCain tax plan seems to create a rather large paradox by saying larger companies getting tax cuts will provide more jobs. Maybe that’s true, but what about the small businesses that, with tax cuts, could grow and provide more jobs to more people. Instead, it seems the high tax bracket for small business makes it difficult for a business to expand and provide jobs. I don't want success to be punished, but I don't want productivity to be hindered either.

What must the Republicans do on Monday in St. Paul? Well, the DNC has thus far been very scarce in pushing the merits of Barack Obama. Instead, all the vast majority of positive Obama messages is spoken in generalities. The Republicans, to sway voters, need to make sure that they do the exact opposite. McCain, because he can’t win on charisma, must express to the American people the specific merits of a McCain presidency on individual issues and juxtapose them with the stance the other camp subscribes to. I am sick of hearing all this bashing all the time, so if he keeps it short and sweet and about him, then I think it would go a long way. Everyone has already heard the arguments from both sides on why shouldn’t I vote for someone, but now the other side of the spectrum needs to be addressed; why should I vote for you?