Private Property vs. Public Interests

I recently attended a forum for candidates running for the local Advisory Neighborhood Council (ANC-1C) in Washington, DC this past Wednesday evening. Regular citizens who serve as ANC representatives volunteer their time and energy for no monetary compensation whatsoever to essentially lobby the DC council for the interests of their neighborhoods. The issues they tackle range from liquor licenses of local businesses to rat control to street parking matters. Their intentions are generally good, but like anyone involved in public service their actions can encroach into areas that should raise some questions. More on this further down.

This year, an Islamic group proposed to build a mosque within very close proximity of Ground Zero in New York City. This has stirred feelings of pain, anger, and sadness within the NYC community, not just because of the location of the mosque, but also because the primary financier of the mosque has made comments in the past stating that America essentially got what it deserved on 9/11. The proposed site is private property. 100% of the funds to build the mosque will have to come from private financing. The builders claim they want to demonstrate that Islam is as much a part of America as every other piece of American culture. The concept of this mosque runs through the NYC population as an unpopular idea. Some in NYC claim that Muslims have no right to build a mosque because of their strong feelings against it, but proponents have used the argument of private property to defend the planned mosque.

Now, I turn back to the ANC forum I attended on Thursday night of this past week. Several of the candidates discussed ideas for growing local small businesses in the neighborhood, a good thing in general. Small businesses have an investment in the community beyond a financial one. They serve as the largest engine for growth in the US economy. They don't export jobs. And they bring diversity to the economy that big businesses often do not. For example, near 18th St. and Columbia Rd. NW lies a Starbucks and local coffee shop called Tryst. Personally, I'd choose Tryst over Starbucks any day of the week and twice on Tuesday as a place to patronize over Starbucks. However, none of that justifies something that these ANC candidates suggested, something I find borderline appalling.

Within the neighborhood, a few businesses have closed and hence moved out of their retail rented space, leaving it open. The owners of the space, as claimed by the ANC candidates, have turned down offers to rent their space because those offers didn't reach the price they demanded. Small businesses have made such offers, but the owners have held out for better offers, offers that chain franchises could more likely fulfill. To address this, the ANC candidates proposed lobbying the city council to, "put pressure," on those owners to rent their space for less money than they choose to keep the chain franchises out of the neighborhood. They gave impassioned speeches while those in attendance cheered and applauded. They propose this with no regard for the fact that those business space owners OWN that property and have the right to rent it to whom they choose. Those owners have the obligations to their debtors, not the ANC candidates. Those owners have to put food on their own tables, not the ANC candidates.

The property rights of those retail shop space owners are no less that those of the owners of the site of the proposed "Ground Zero" mosque. In one case, the unpopularity has its roots in fear of Ialam and Shia law. In the other, the unpopularity has its roots in chain franchises changing the face of the neighborhood in a way that displeases those who live in the community. The heart of the issue, however, does not differ: private property. If proponents of Sharia Law have private property rights, so too do commercial real estate owners who want to rent to big, trendy chain franchises.

DC neighborhood communities should make such decisions based on principal, rather than personal interest alone. We can either as a society autocratically allow popular opinion to dictate what private owners must do, or we can draw limitation on how far our personal interests can encroach on private property. The overall point is this. My local ANC demonizing chain franchises while the local authorities of NYC defend proponents of Sharia Law makes for quite a disgusting contrast, but that's nonetheless what's happening now.

Rich Republicans?

It is a common knowledge that Republicans are rich and always act protecting their money. I decided to check online, and to my surprise it is the opposite, at least on the level of states: "blue" states are richer, "red" are poorer.

Maps: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/05/median_income_d.html

From http://old.nationalreview.com/nrof_buzzcharts/buzzcharts200507110903.asp
July 11, 2005, 9:03 a.m.
Rich Republicans? By Jerry Bowyer
Not yet. The red states are still number two, and working hard for a living.

The notion that the GOP is the party of the rich simply doesn’t match the economic reality.

States with the highest per capita income trend Democrat; the states with the lowest per capita income trend Republican. The top ten “blue states,” for example, had an average per capita personal income of $36,327, which is 20 percent higher than the top ten “red states,” which had an average of $30,275.

****************************************************

Isn't it interesting? I even found a blog that discussed why Republicans are so stupid that being poor they vote Republican. It was a bit of provocation, not abusive.

So, perception is everything. We have to change it, and there are many ways. Hope we can work on it after elections. If we find ways that correspond with our interests and talents, it will be fun. My dream is to have Youtube channel. This is a beauty of America where anything is possible.

Another interesting economic analisis on stimulus:
http://mercatus.org/publication/stimulusfacts

Congressional maps and charts http://www.fairdata2000.com/Congressional/

And next report is simply outrageous. Stimulus as a pay-off from Democratic government to it supporters? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Report-Stimulus-funds-not-targeted-to-states-that-need-jobs-79530417.html

Report: Democratic districts received nearly twice the amount of stimulus funds as GOP districts By: Mark Hemingway 12/16/2009

A new analysis of the $157 billion distributed by the American Reinvestment and Recovery act, popularly known as the stimulus bill, shows that the funds were distributed without regard for what states were most in need of jobs.

“You would think that if the stimulus money was actually spent to create jobs, there would be more stimulus money spent in high unemployment states,” said Veronique de Rugy, a scholar at the Mercatus Center who produced the analysis. "But we don't find any correlation."

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia is one of the nation's most respected economic and regulatory think tanks and has a Nobel prize-winning economist on staff. The econometric analysis was done using data provided by Recovery.gov -- the government website devoted to tracking the stimulus data -- as well as a host of other government databases.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Report-Stimulus-funds-not-targeted-to-states-that-need-jobs-79530417.html#ixzz0zwsuZZsC

Affordable housing

To educate the public on something that I learned today.

I'm looking for a way to escape from de-facto rent increase - I'd have to pay $110 utilities a month in addition to my $1412 rent for 1 BR apartment. It will put a strain on my budget (candidates can use this example for debates). I've got a suggestion today from a woman whose daughter applied and received approval for Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) Program http://www.rockvillemd.gov/residents/MPDU/.

As everything that is government, it doesn't explain clearly the requirements (otherwise where all mediators/gov employees would work?), but from what I understood, there are different income requirements for Rockville and MD as a whole. Not a big difference, but I think I qualify for MD and am too rich for the town of Rockville to take an advantage of this program.

If you want to read not very emotional but very factual research it is below. I'll make quoted text in a different color; bold and underline will be mine to draw your attention.

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/dhctmpl.asp?url=/content/dhca/housing/housing_p/mpdu/mpdu_rental_program.asp

SUMMARY OF THE PROGRAM AND ITS REQUIREMENTS

A Home You Can Afford (...) A goal of the Montgomery County Housing Policy states that affordable housing should be available to people of all incomes. To help achieve this goal, the County Council passed the Moderately Priced Housing (MPH) Law in 1974. A provision of the MPH Law requires that between 12.5% and 15% of the houses in new subdivisions of 20 or more units be moderately priced dwelling units (MPDUs). The MPH Law requires that 40% of the MPDUs be offered to the Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC) and other non-profit housing agencies for use by low and moderate income families.

Included in the MPDU program are detached and semi-detached homes (duplexes), townhouses, garden condominiums and high-rise condominiums and apartments. Under the present sales price limits, a three bedroom townhouse has a sales price of approximately $165,000. Sales prices and rental limits are reviewed annually and are revised to reflect changes in construction costs.

Click here for more information about the MPDU Rental Program. Click here for more information about the MPDU Purchase Program.

My comments. HOC has lower requirements for income to qualify and must have lower rental prices.

My question about affordable housing should be available to people of all incomes. Why? We are not talking about people living on a street in a need of shelter, it is about AFFORDABLE housing. Why?

For Rockville http://www.rockvillemd.gov/residents/MPDU/
What are the current maximum income limits?

• 1 person family $43,500
• 2 person family $49,700
• 3 person family $55,900
• 4 person family $62,100
• 5 person family $67,100

I'm too rich to apply. Another comment - my friends in Brooklyn who had about 55K a year for 3 of them (only father works), and now $62K (at the best, not always) for 4 on same conditions bought a new car for $20K and property in their native country, without any illegal activity. My friend is very frugal, cooks at home, buys clothes on sale in GAP and Marshall's, takes advantages of very cheap Brooklyn prices. They have 2 big TVs, digital toys for the whole family, fly to Europe every year, older son is in college on merit earned scholarship. They never lived in affordable housing and don't plan. Why somebody else should? Because they want to eat out every day, take a taxi and have no idea how to save on sales?

Now, more about MD program. http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/dhctmpl.asp?url=/content/dhca/housing/housing_p/mpdu/mpdu_rental_program.asp

MPDU Rental Program

• Montgomery County's Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) Program offers affordable rents at a number of MPDU apartment complexes located throughout the County. (...)
  
• Click here for a list of MPDU rental complexes
  Please look under the column entitled "Vacancies (BM)" which lists Below Market (BM) rate apartments, such as MPDUsplease call the apartment complex directly at the phone number listed.
  
• DHCA no longer provides applications and no longer issues Certificates of Eligibility for MPDU rentals.

Are You Eligible? (All incomes are gross household income; that is, household income before taxes)

• Minimum annual household income is $30,000.
• Maximum annual household income (effective May 14, 2010):
  

Household Size	Maximum Income-- Garden Apartments	Maximum Income-- High Rise Apartments
1	$47,000	$50,500
2	$54,000	$58,000
3	$60,500	$65,000
4	$67,500	$72,500
5	$72,500	$78,000

You must:

have at least as many people in your household as the number of bedrooms in the apartment;
demonstrate a good credit rating that is acceptable to the apartment management; and
be able to afford the monthly rent payments for the MPDU rental property.

Hurray! Anywhere but Rockville I still can use somebody's money to help me to rent an apartment at cheaper price. Ain't it nice?

DO YOU THINK THAT SOMEBODY WHO MAKES BEFORE TAXES FROM 47K TO 50.5K NEEDS HELP TO RENT AN APARTMENT BELOW MARKET PRICE? DO YOU WANT TO ELECT PEOPLE WHO WILL STOP IT?

If this opportunity is available, why somebody wouldn't use it? People don't think that money to support such programs make our deficit grow, and children of those who enjoy now ease of life will pay heavily. And if I look around and see that my friends (even if some make more than I?) take advantage of paying $1028 a month instead of $1412 as I do now, how long can I hold on my principles? If they have $300 a month more to spend, it is hard for me to compete with them. What if I say "everybody does it, and it is legal"? What does it do to the spirit of fairness and the drive to achieve?

I hope that candidates can use this information to show that erosion of ethics goes on all levels. My question is - how many will vote for those who oppose these programs?

Leadership Defined in the Gulf

After two months of BP's deep water well still leaking oil, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal has been working himself to the bone to stop or even just slow the oil from encroaching on his state's shorelines and clean up the oil already washing up there. At every turn, the federal government and Barack Obama have thwarted his efforts. It's one thing for the administration's cold indifference to the consequences of this spill, but it's sinks to a rotten level when it stands in the way of cleanup and prevention and then uses the tragedy to push their anti-domestically obtained fossil fuel agenda.

Listen to Jindal. You can here the passion and sincerity in the tone of his voice. His words aren't rolling off a teleprompter. They are genuine and the signs of real leadership, the signs of someone who has executive experience.

link: Governor Jindal speaking on talk radio

Racism and Obama

A few months ago, I heard a commentator accuse President Barack Obama of being a racist. While I've shared many views with said commentator, I considered this statement far over the top. The basis of that accusation sat on the fact that the stimulus bill (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) Obama signed into law required that all funds spend only went to organizations that satisfied racial quotas. This means that any business applying for work paid from stimulus funds that did not satisfy this requirement had no eligibility to earn such contracts. I don't agree with the basic premise of affirmative action as I view it as mostly counter-productive to its supporters' intent, but I've never thought of such an idea as racist because I believe the motivation stems from sincere efforts to help the disadvantaged, misguided as I view it.

Further along into Obama's term, I have taken notice of some particular events, each on their own warranting acknowledgement. I'll catalog these in chronological order.

First, on election day 2008, a group of members of the New Black Panthers stood outside of a polling station in Philadelphia, PA holding nightsticks using the racial slur, "cracker," in their words of intimidation to scare white people away from the polling station. The Department of Justice (DOJ) took up the case shortly thereafter.

In May of 2009, President Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. He declares the need for the court to have increased diversity in its representation in the form of race and gender. Sotomayor's past includes membership in La Raza ("The Race"), a race-based interest organization, and comments that a latina woman can better reach some decisions than others. Justice has blindness to race, wealth, background, and demographics. Justice means equal and fair application of the law. Anything else is not justice.

In July of 2009 Harvard professor Henry Gates encountered a policeman visiting his home in response to a call from a concerned neighbor. Gates, feeling as though the visit amounted to an unnecessary intrusion and spoke belligerently towards the officer while invoking a racial tone. The arresting officer is a white man, and Professor Gates is a black man. After Gates' language escalated to a level that the officer found inappropriate and disrespectful of a policeman, the officer arrested Gates. I don't know the exact exchange that happened between the two; only their respective recounts and those of witnesses paint the picture. I suspect that the officer didn't really need to arrest Gates and could have simply left the scene in due course, but I only speculate. At Obama's next press conference, one of the press pool members asked a planted question about the Gates incident. (If you don't think that question was planted, you really were born yesterday.) Obama, despite not even knowing much about the incident as he later admitted, immediately lashed out at the officer by saying that the police acted, "stupidly." The scenario culminated with Gates and the officer having a beer at the White House in a gesture of making up with one another at the invitation of President Obama.

Only a matter of weeks later Lionel McIntyre, a Columbia University black, male professor, was engaged in a political argument in a Harlem bar with a white, female Columbia University employee working under him. In the moment of a heated exchanged, he punched her in the face, and the police arrested him. Obama made no reference to the matter at all despite the fresh tone of racial tension just set by the Gates arrest.

During the town hall protests against proposed health care legislation in August of 2009 in Missouri, a black man named Kenneth Gladney stood outside of the town hall event selling flags that read, "Don't Tread on Me," with the image of a coiled snake. The symbols has its roots in the anti-tax attitude of the American colonists towards their British rulers. Many have today invoked that image to show opposition to increased government control (in areas such as health care) and high taxes. Upon seeing this, a group of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members spotted Gladney and physically assaulted him, beating him down onto the concrete sidewalk. Obama has strong support from SEIU in money and campaigning manpower, and throughout his Presidential campaign declared their agenda as his agenda. Obama makes no mention of Gladney.

In October of 2009, President Obama signs racial hate speech legislation into law. He makes no mention of the New Black Panthers at the polling station nor any mention of Kenneth Gladney.

In July of 2010, the US Commission on Civil Rights called formal DOJ official J. Christian Adams to testify at a hearing. His testimony revealed that the DOJ under Obama had aggressively suppressed any action against the New Black Panther members who intimidated voters at the Philadelphia polling station. The DOJ dropped the charges reported because the members promised they wouldn't wield nightsticks at polling stations...UNTIL 2012! One of these members has gone so far as to preach in public that blacks need to kill, "cracker," to be free. He says blacks need to, "kill white babies!"

Also in July of 2010, Obama praised the late Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) for years of service. Byrd joied a filibuster against the Civil Rights Act at the age of 47 years old.

President Obama has a biracial background, but simply having a particular background doesn't exonerate behavior. Each person defines their character by their actions. Racism is prejudice or discrimination against people because of their race. Some in the media have tried to reclassify racism as something only people in power can exhibit. Obama's actions combined with certain inaction meets both of these criteria. His actions prop up one group of people at the behest of others, based on race.

About socialism

Socialism on a personal level: somebody believes that he or she is entitled to different things - health care, education, housing, pension, etc. A key word is "entitled".

Socialism on a country level: regulation is stronger than a private sector. Means of production are in the hands of the government, or are under it control. I've read that if California could be divided in 3 parts, all problems would be solved. It is hard to regulate even a state, let alone a country.

When somebody says "I have a right to", I listen carefully because very often it is a red flag (pun was not intended). From where I'm now, I see that we have a right to only one things - to exist. Nobody can give us life; we can't even conceive a child at will - it is always a game of chance. We also can't restore a life when it is gone, it is also a chance that doctors sometimes have. We better behave ourselves in a manner that provides conditions for other human beings to exist, or society has a right to confine, or even take a life that is dangerous to others' survival.

The rest is a privilege. Some people are born intelligent, some have low IQ. Some are healthy, some are invalids - and so on. Born in poverty or riches... If we don't accept that life is unfair we will try to build a system that eradicates such unfairness, or brings them to bare minimum. It is not my theoretical opinion that such system is impossible: it is proved historically, from French to Russian revolution. Rights and entitlements have a tendency to grow because it is in human nature to want more and more, but there is no source to support such draw. It all always ends in rationing and concentration camps for unhappy.

If somebody agrees with such premises, it would be productive to discuss how we can regulate free enterprise to make if more efficient, to provide a better flow for it. As an analogy - imagine cleaning up a river up from logs and sand banks, and building bridges over it. But is somebody doesn't agree and wants to substitute a river with a concrete canal that is straight and more efficient, it would be a model of socialism.

Some say that better model is possible, just look at the Europe. From what I know, European countries are less developed than America - even if they don't have to spend a big portion of their budgets for armaments. Sweden or Spain had a luxury to invest in social services while we stood against Soviet Union. Unemployment in Europe is normally higher then in America in recession.

On a health care front recall 10 thousand dead in France 7 years ago in a heat wave because relatives left their elderly and infirm in a care of the government services www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/heat-a22.shtml. Can you imagine it in the USA? Heat, or cold, or hurricane, or tornado - people help each other, and a death toll is never more than 10-20 people.

Naturally, there are disadvantages in the American system, too, but I prefer a hassle in everyday care to seemingly orderly fashion in Canada or Europe if our cancer survival rates are 20-30% higher than anywhere in the world. Of course, it would be good to have it all, but let us be realists.

Before "bad" and "aggressive" imperialist known as the US started "ruling" the world, that world experienced deadly devastating war twice a century (not counting small bloodsheds). "Civilized" Europeans killed each other until bad-mannered Americans started to provide stability. These people should pray for Uncle Sam... not to burn his flags. Now instead of exterminating each other in wars Europeans simply stopped to procreate; they are dying out. Maybe, there is a payment for entitlements after all?

Whatever the answer(s), American experiment is unique and deserve respect and studying. It worked for 200 years, and people still die - literally - to get there. I take it personally when those who are lucky to stay here criticize and want to transform the US in the another "old country". For those who are born in America and are dissatisfied, my advice is to relocate to any other country and live there not as a visitor but to go "native", working, using health care, education, etc. I'll be glad to embrace them when they come back...

How I became a Fox News watcher

Anybody who pays an ounce of attention to American news knows that Fox News Channel (FNC) has a polarizing affect on those of us in the country who delve into the daily news cycles. People love and hate the network, but not necessarily across strict party and ideological lines. But those who hate the channel wage a near constant crusade against its existence. My path to trusting FCN to deliver news in commentary followed a long and windy trail, and I feel like sharing that story.

I grew up in a house that indulged in the twenty-four hour news cycle. My childhood has memories of many nights of doing homework while my father sat at the end of the kitchen table smoking a cigarette while watching Peter Jennings, David Brinkley, or Crossfire and not uncommonly yelling at the television under an impulse that overshadows the fact that nobody on the screen could hear him. In my college years, I didn't really have the luxury of time to follow the daily cycles of the news. But towards the end of my college days, I began to make it a point to carve out a little slice of time regularly to watch the news. I tuned into MSNBC, not for any real reason besides I had seen plenty of CNN growing up, and I figured why not try something new. For humor, I started to tune into the Daily Show with Craig Kilborn. Every night of that show offered a good laugh or two that make it worth watching.

When I finally graduated I had the most of amount of free time available to me since five years prior, after a day's work I had my nights free to follow current events more closely. I stuck with MSNBC. In 1999, Chris Matthews hosted (and still hosts) a show called Hardball. He passionately offered opinion and commentary I found insightful and informative. Brian Williams anchored the chair for the nightly news on MSNBC's sister network, CNBC, and I liked the way he delivered the nightly news more than the traditional anchors. The NBC network was clearly grooming him for Tom Brokaw's spot for when the day came that he retired. Matthews, a Democrat, willingfully challenged the leadership of his own party. He criticized President Bill Clinton's conduct in the Lewinsky scandal, pardoning of the FLAN terrorists, and Whitewater just to name a few. Having read Matthews' books, I knew his heart lied (and still lies) strongly with the positions espoused by the Democrat Party. I knew it took guts to voice opposition in such a way in the face of his critics calling him a traitor. MSNBC also offered commentary shows by Dan Abrams and Jerry Nachman. Abrams had a soft spoken manner that presented a delicate approach to discussing issues. Nachman had a no-nonsense type of approach to issues that I really appreciated. (Tragically, he died at the age of 57 battling cancer in 2004.) Lester Hull seemed to do a good job in his reporting. I continued to tune into the Daily Show on Comedy Central. By then, John Stewart had taken over the show, and in my opinion took an already good show and made it better, always good for a few laughs.

Then, 9/11 happened. Like every American, I felt sad, angry, and vulnerable all at the same time. A young, attractive, and sharp Canadian-American Ashley Banfield rose from a moderately known reporter to a star in the media world. She went straight to Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 and speaking fluent Arabic languages provided very insightful, up-close and personal coverage of what was happening there. MSNBC's team had done exactly what a twenty-four hour cable news network needed for the American public and for me. They stayed with us through the months after 9/11 making me feel like I was informed about the status of how the United States and the rest of the world exhibited resiliency in the face of the horror we confronted. MSNBC was MY network. It wasn't my only source of news. Nobody should rely on a single source, but they were by far my favorite. Unfortunately, a rift grew between MSNBC and Banfield, and some in-house politics led to the ending of her journalistic career in news. Shortly thereafter Keith Olbermann started with MSNBC as well as Joe Scarborough. Olbermann offered a hip entertaining presentation of the news, and Scarborough provided commentary from a point of view that often shared.

Then came 2004. It was the year of a hotly contested election, which presented the contest between incumbent George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry. The polling showed the two neck and neck, but in the end Bush won reelection. It didn't happen quite as fast as the flip of a switch, but in very short order, many of the MSNBC pundits began taking a very sharp tone, almost combative with anyone who dared not share their ideas across a wide range of issues. Some of their rhetoric became downright spiteful, mean, and insulting. These weren't my old lovable anchors and commentators from MSNBC any longer. They weren't the people with whom I would commonly disagree on ideology but still trust to deliver reliable reporting and researched opinion. Something had changed, and as I viewer I really felt uninvited to watch. Olbermann got to the point where he would yell about the ineptitude and stupidity of people who disagreed with him. Matthews would spend entire shows just digging and digging at every mistake of the administration and try to sensationalize them to an extent that really didn't add much insight. Scarborough just didn't seem to have the same spark.

So after years of loyal viewing of MSNBC, I decided to change the channel. I went back to the name I recognized from my childhood. The name in news that brought coverage of the first Iraq war, the Gulf War, by way of Bernard Shaw reporting from underneath a table while Bagdad sustained bombing. CNN had changed quite a bit since my childhood, but it seemed to have its merits. I liked what they had done with Crossfire. They extended the show to an hour and changed to a live audience. Even better, they filmed it in DC where I lived. I could reserve a ticket to the show online for free, head down to George Washington University, and watch a show live. What a treat! Crossfire's ratings didn't really sustain the levels of their competition, so the network pulled the plug on it. Oh well. None of the other anchors were really captivating. Wold Blitzer seemed to compete for the worlds best softball tosser. He could never outmatch Larry King in that arena, but he clearly didn't have what it takes to put an interviewee on his or her heels. Anderson Cooper seemed at least un-offensively biased. Overall I didn't get much depth from CNN's programming. It really just seemed to function as an ineffective branch of the Democrat Party's PR relations. CNN had Glenn Beck on the air, but the network ostracized him as some kind of cancer for simply speaking his mind. On the comedy side of things, John Stewart of the Daily Show just recycled the theme of George W. Bush being and idiot over and over and over again, and his humor became too predictable and too partisan for me to find enjoyable.

So I changed the channel once again. This time, I landed on FNC. I held some reluctance because it had the reputation of a network that Conservatives and Libertarians preferred. Identifying myself as some hybrid of those two, I figured I would primarily get information with which I frequently agreed and didn't find much reason to challenge. Their lineup included Neil Cavuto reporting on business news, Brit Hume and Shephard Smith reporting the national news, Bill O'Reilly expressing views all across the political landscape but probably falling Center-Right on the spectrum, Sean Hannity and Allen Colmes bringing Conservative and Liberal points of view to commentary and debate, and a seemingly Center-Left Gretta Van Susteren. After making habit of watching, I really didn't see why the hatred and badmouthing of network existed. It represented all points of view and the reporting went straight down the line. It REALLY was fair and balanced. Thinking back to the other networks I had watched, I could then understand why so many viewed FNC as a Conservative sympathetic media. If you come from the perspective of a viewer of CNN, MSNBC, PBS, or any of the OTA (Over The Air) broadcast networks, you probably would have viewed FNC as Right, but the fallacy in that view lies in the fact that every other news network leans very far to the Left! Something else I noticed, the most vociferously outspoken critics of FNC never laid claim to ever watching it. It makes one ask what is it that they fear people learning so much that they want to shut such a network down? After a few months of watching, I concluded yep, I trust this network the most to deliver news and commentary. They didn't toss softballs to the Left while pitching fastballs to the Right. They pitched fastballs at everybody. And something existed on FNC that I had never seen represented anywhere else in news, particularly on Hannity and Colmes' show. While bitter rivals in the arena of political talk, they put on the show as the best of friends. They demonstrated a very important aspect of American Exceptionalism: that my neighbor may think very differently than I, but I will still love my neighbor on the basis of a common understanding that we put our humanity above government and politics.

In recent years, I think anyone has to fairly admit that certain aspects of FNC have drifted more towards Conservative and Libertarian content in their commentary. They've added Glenn Beck to the lineup, who provides very thoroughly researched commentary from a Conservative/Libertarian point of view. Alan Colmes decided to leave Hannity and Colmes, leaving Hannity to carry the show on his own, thus making it a Conservative commentary show. FNC also added Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld to their late night lineup, a comedy and political talk show hybrid, that brought a fast paced dynamic humor that transcends the monotony of the Daily Show. Bret Baier has taken over Special Report after Hume's semi-retirement, and has continued the unbiased reporting.

If not for FOX news, no major media outlet would deliver valuable perspectives that the American public deserves to have. I wish the people who routinely bash FNC would give it an honest chance. They might surprise themselves. If any news organization actually deserves the pointed rhetoric, the NBC affiliates without question do. General Electric owns those corporations as a parent company and stands to benefit financially from policy advocated by the Obama administration. Jefferey Immelt, CEO of GE, serves on the President's economic advisory council. This presents a real conflict of interest on their part with respect to reporting and making commentary upon the news. MSNBC has also purposefully edited footage in such a manner as to present complete falsehood as fact. But here we are, having to defend FNC.

Northrop Grumman & the DC 2010 Elections

This November brings Republican challengers running for the DC
council: Mark Morgan (Ward One), Tim Day (Ward Five), and David
Hedgepeth (Ward Three). Each stands to gain if they use Northrop
choosing VA for its corporate headquarters over DC (and MD) as an
illustration of policies not providing a business friendly
environment. For example, VA is a Right-To-Work state. DC is not.
VA has lower taxes. VA legislators don't frequently land the front
page in scandals. Northrop’s highly paid professionals will buy $6
Starbucks lattes across the river rather than stimulating the economy
of the District. Small business owners tell me DC has a very business
hostile climate. This costs the city new jobs and economic growth.
If GOP candidates hone in on this theme and residents open their minds
to people with an R next to their names, DC’s legislative landscape
could change for the better this November.