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.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
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.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
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.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
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...
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...
Saturday, May 15, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Ben Stien & God
The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.
My confession:
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees.. I don't feel threatened.. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.
It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto... In fact, I kind of like it It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a crèche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.
I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.
In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking..
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'
In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing yet?
Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it..
Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein
My confession:
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees.. I don't feel threatened.. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.
It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto... In fact, I kind of like it It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a crèche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.
I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.
In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking..
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'
In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing yet?
Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it..
Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein
Monday, May 25, 2009
Memorial Day - Support Our Troops
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/One US legislator asked a child on a school trip visiting the US capital what Memorial Day means. That child replied by saying that the pools open for their first day of the Summer season. That floored US legislator so hard that he initiated legislation to have a moment of recognition at 3:00 p.m. every Memorial Day for people to pause and reflect on what Memorial Day really means, honoring the many US servicemen and servicewomen who defend this great nation as well as many others.
We live amongst heroes who put aside plans for education, put life and limb in harms way, and spend long amounts of time away from their friends and family at home. Their sacrifice makes one that those of us who have never served could never fully understand.
I hold them up as heroes although many of them would ask that we not do, and I proudly say that I support our troops. And to put meaning to words I donate to a non-profit organization that helps our wounded veterans returning from the battlefield. Many such organizations exist and do great work. I, personally, donate to the Wounded Warrior Project who's mantra reads, "The greatest casualty is being forgotten." Please forgive me for not listing all such organizations, I do not mean to suggest that only WWP does such great work. If you do want to contribute to an organization that helps our wounded veterans, WWP provides a greate way to contribute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)