In a recent article by the NY Times Magazine Barack Obama was commenting on the close race between McCain and himself. I was amazed to read this quote;
“I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls. If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me, right? Because the way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that? "
I find this statement extremely arrogant! Obama expects that Fox News should be peeing themselves over him the way all the others have. According to him there should be no other point of view....just like reporting is done in China maybe? Fox doesn't portray him in the way he wants us to believe.
In September Obama had the opportunity to be interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. It was a three part interview in which Obama insisted part one be aired on September 4, the same night as McCain was due to accept the nomination for the Republican Presidential ticket. Mr. O'Reilly treated him fairly and asked honest questions. Obama was not portrayed as any freak.
There is an ongoing joke going around in media circles referring to Obama as the Messiah. This is because most of those in the media are so taken with him. They adore and idolize him. I am happy to say that Fox News has not fallen under his spell. I can watch a story covering either McCain or Obama on CNN, and then watch those same events on Fox News. I often wonder if those were really the same events. Fox News serves to balance the story out. If all I had to watch or listen to were CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, or read NY Times, Washington Post, I would be calling Obama the Messiah as well.
We can all thank the real Messiah for Fox News!
Mr. Obama, did you ever stop to think that if the other outlets reported fairly you wouldn't even be a blip in the polls? You're only as far as you are because most of the media portray you as the messiah and are pushing you along!
This country needs more media outlets like Fox News.
NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/magazine/19obama-t.html?pagewanted=10&_r=1&ref=magazine
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Voting for Obama because he's black
I've heard from many sources that 90% of black Americans will vote for Barack Obama because he's black. I've also heard that some whites won't vote for him because he's black. Then, there are a large number of white voters who will vote for Barack Obama because they agree with him on the issues.
But wait a minute, let’s look at this.
We're expected to educate ourselves on who the candidates are, and where they stand on the issues. We do this to determine whether or not we agree with their views on abortion, taxes, gun control, foreign policy, etc. This is expected so the informed, educated voter will show up at the polls and make their selection based on the issues. Isn't that what the expectations have been since the very first vote was cast in this country? I'm not saying that every voter has taken the time to thoroughly examine all of the issues, but there has been an expectation that voters will be aware.
Now we seem to be excluding blacks from this expectation. We seem to be willing to accept that they aren’t even interested in issues, only race.
Why is that? Has anyone in the media asked that question of black voters? Is that racist?
Is it racist of the media to accept the idea that black American voters will automatically vote for Barack Obama because he’s black?
Why is this acceptable? Is it acceptable that the majority of black Americans could be viewed by the world as issue ignorant in this election? It almost seems as if the blacks are not expected to be politically aware, so the movers and shakers give them a pass when they cast their vote based on race. That white voters are racist if they vote by race, but blacks, well, they're just black voters, so we understand. There is something terribly wrong with this expectation!
I believe that voters, black or white do themselves a great disservice by ignoring the issues and voting according to race. If you ignore what your candidate stands for, you could find yourself in the middle of a catastrophe and have no idea how you got there.
But wait a minute, let’s look at this.
We're expected to educate ourselves on who the candidates are, and where they stand on the issues. We do this to determine whether or not we agree with their views on abortion, taxes, gun control, foreign policy, etc. This is expected so the informed, educated voter will show up at the polls and make their selection based on the issues. Isn't that what the expectations have been since the very first vote was cast in this country? I'm not saying that every voter has taken the time to thoroughly examine all of the issues, but there has been an expectation that voters will be aware.
Now we seem to be excluding blacks from this expectation. We seem to be willing to accept that they aren’t even interested in issues, only race.
Why is that? Has anyone in the media asked that question of black voters? Is that racist?
Is it racist of the media to accept the idea that black American voters will automatically vote for Barack Obama because he’s black?
Why is this acceptable? Is it acceptable that the majority of black Americans could be viewed by the world as issue ignorant in this election? It almost seems as if the blacks are not expected to be politically aware, so the movers and shakers give them a pass when they cast their vote based on race. That white voters are racist if they vote by race, but blacks, well, they're just black voters, so we understand. There is something terribly wrong with this expectation!
I believe that voters, black or white do themselves a great disservice by ignoring the issues and voting according to race. If you ignore what your candidate stands for, you could find yourself in the middle of a catastrophe and have no idea how you got there.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
John McCain can do it!
I've been hearing from several people that McCain is just too soft on Obama and is letting this election slip away because he insists on being a gentleman.
Here's the situation........
The mainstream media seems believes that Barack Obama can do no wrong. Anyone who dares go against him is treated as the antichrist. Consequently anything John McCain says is twisted and turned into something that does not even resemble what he really said.
Sarah Palin is treated in the same manner. The mainstream media publicizes anyone making fun of Sarah while overlooking any shady areas surrounding Obama.
If John McCain aggressively goes after Obama on any issue or personal judgments, the mainstream media has, and will continue to scream racism. Obama's campaign will be all over every mainstream media outlet professing how racist McCain is.
With all things considered, John McCain and Sarah Palin are doing a wonderful job staying above the fray in light of these circumstances.
Stay strong John and Sarah!
We believe in you and understand what you have to do.
Here's the situation........
The mainstream media seems believes that Barack Obama can do no wrong. Anyone who dares go against him is treated as the antichrist. Consequently anything John McCain says is twisted and turned into something that does not even resemble what he really said.
Sarah Palin is treated in the same manner. The mainstream media publicizes anyone making fun of Sarah while overlooking any shady areas surrounding Obama.
If John McCain aggressively goes after Obama on any issue or personal judgments, the mainstream media has, and will continue to scream racism. Obama's campaign will be all over every mainstream media outlet professing how racist McCain is.
With all things considered, John McCain and Sarah Palin are doing a wonderful job staying above the fray in light of these circumstances.
Stay strong John and Sarah!
We believe in you and understand what you have to do.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Our voting mess
Ohio’s voting laws require voters to be residents of Ohio for at least 30 days immediately before the election. How can they then allow voters to register and vote on the same day between Sept. 30 and Oct 6? How will anyone know whether that person will be a resident between Oct. 5 and Nov. 4?
The current voting registration debacle swirling throughout Ohio and accusations of fraud in other states does not need to happen. What ever happened to common sense? It’s easy…take identification with you and go to your polling place to register to vote. Polling workers put your information into a database which can then be verified through other state databases. Simple! No harm, no foul. Those databases already exist.
Or can we use this crises as yet another tool for government intrusion. It happens every time we refuse to use common sense to solve a problem.
1. Identify a problem
2. Create a crisis
3. The public demands government intervention
4. Another piece of privacy dissolves.
WWUSD- What would Uncle Sam do?
Well, let me see. Why not use technology?
We can go to our doctor’s office to register to vote!
Your doctor can program an RFID chip with not only your medical information, but your voting information as well. Then inject that chip just under your skin just like the vet does for your dog.
When you vote on election day you just show up at your polling place where the voting machine will verify you by reading your RFID chip.
If the RFID chip can’t be found by the voting booth it won’t allow you to vote.
If more that one RFID chip is found the booth won’t allow you to vote.
Every booth will be connected to a state wide database where it can instantly record your vote, which will prevent a second vote from the same voter.
Voters will be allowed to vote at any polling place.
We can even implement a paper trail. After a voter casts a ballot the voting booth offers a receipt with the voter’s RFID voting information. The voter then takes that receipt and drops it into a ballot box.
Election results will be instantaneous and can be cross checked to make sure every vote was counted.
Additionally, with RFID those who find it necessary, will be able to track everywhere we go.
Sounds spookily Orwellian!!!!!
The current voting registration debacle swirling throughout Ohio and accusations of fraud in other states does not need to happen. What ever happened to common sense? It’s easy…take identification with you and go to your polling place to register to vote. Polling workers put your information into a database which can then be verified through other state databases. Simple! No harm, no foul. Those databases already exist.
Or can we use this crises as yet another tool for government intrusion. It happens every time we refuse to use common sense to solve a problem.
1. Identify a problem
2. Create a crisis
3. The public demands government intervention
4. Another piece of privacy dissolves.
WWUSD- What would Uncle Sam do?
Well, let me see. Why not use technology?
We can go to our doctor’s office to register to vote!
Your doctor can program an RFID chip with not only your medical information, but your voting information as well. Then inject that chip just under your skin just like the vet does for your dog.
When you vote on election day you just show up at your polling place where the voting machine will verify you by reading your RFID chip.
If the RFID chip can’t be found by the voting booth it won’t allow you to vote.
If more that one RFID chip is found the booth won’t allow you to vote.
Every booth will be connected to a state wide database where it can instantly record your vote, which will prevent a second vote from the same voter.
Voters will be allowed to vote at any polling place.
We can even implement a paper trail. After a voter casts a ballot the voting booth offers a receipt with the voter’s RFID voting information. The voter then takes that receipt and drops it into a ballot box.
Election results will be instantaneous and can be cross checked to make sure every vote was counted.
Additionally, with RFID those who find it necessary, will be able to track everywhere we go.
Sounds spookily Orwellian!!!!!
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Is the race card being played in this election?
After reading an article by Shelby Steele, titled Race and Responsibility, I realized that our mainstream media is using a form of racism to promote Barack Obama to the Presidency. If the mainstream media really thought Mr. Obama could succeed on his own merits, would they feel the need to slant every article to make him look better? Of course not, they would do their duty as professional journalists to make sure the voters of this country could come to their own conclusions based on all of the facts.
We can't just say that the media are liberal and let it go with that. We would not then be able to explain why the Clinton's have been treated the way they have. The respect and popularity they once maintained within the Democratic Party seems to have been severely eroded thanks media attacks against them. Where, all of the sudden did the idea that the Clinton's are evil come from? The media saw Hillary Clinton as a real threat to Obama’s ascension. Did they assume that without their assistance Obama would not be able to overcome this threat on his own, or through his own merits? If the media clearly believed in Obama's ability, they should not feel the need to interfere with this election by slanting their stories in favor of him and against anyone who threatens his success.
As Steele pointed out in describing affermative action programs engineered to uplift blacks in this country, "the deeper problem is their pre-emption of black responsibility, their implication that black progress is contingent on interventions from on high that will somehow do the work of black uplift".
It does seem that the media thinks, as Steele inferred that Obama's abilities and efforts alone would never be enough and that his progress can only be assured with their help.
Does Barack Obama have what it takes to earn the Presidency on his own merits? Sadly, because of media, we will never know.
We can't just say that the media are liberal and let it go with that. We would not then be able to explain why the Clinton's have been treated the way they have. The respect and popularity they once maintained within the Democratic Party seems to have been severely eroded thanks media attacks against them. Where, all of the sudden did the idea that the Clinton's are evil come from? The media saw Hillary Clinton as a real threat to Obama’s ascension. Did they assume that without their assistance Obama would not be able to overcome this threat on his own, or through his own merits? If the media clearly believed in Obama's ability, they should not feel the need to interfere with this election by slanting their stories in favor of him and against anyone who threatens his success.
As Steele pointed out in describing affermative action programs engineered to uplift blacks in this country, "the deeper problem is their pre-emption of black responsibility, their implication that black progress is contingent on interventions from on high that will somehow do the work of black uplift".
It does seem that the media thinks, as Steele inferred that Obama's abilities and efforts alone would never be enough and that his progress can only be assured with their help.
Does Barack Obama have what it takes to earn the Presidency on his own merits? Sadly, because of media, we will never know.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Obama,,,,,who is Obama?
I find it interesting that I now know more about Sara Palin than I do about about Barack Obama. Why is that? Is it because the media hasn't asked any real questions of Mr. Obama. I'm waiting for Mr. Obama to allow a news conference. I haven't seen any impromptu interviews or new conferences by Mr. Obama. Everything seems to be staged. Why is that? Is that to make sure that the man behind the curtain is on the job and ready? These are just questions that make you say hmmmmm......
True Media Colors
I thought I had seen everything, but these latest attacks against McCain and Palin really go too far. Maybe the media knows that Sarah is one tough cookie and can stand up to their attacks. So now they resort to picking on a 17 year old. Bristol has nothing to do with the politics of her Mother and should not be made to feel like her actions affect her Mother's career. Is it really necessary for the media to try and drag the daughter of a candidate through the mud just because you disagree with her Mother's politics? Shame on you all!
Do you in the media have any idea what your attacks might be doing to Bristol? Do you care? Do any of you have children? Would you want your child to have to go through any of this simply because of your politics? Where is your compassion!
There used to be a time when a reporter worked to publish a story because it was a newsworthy piece. I don't know what happened to the scruples that used to be a part of reporting the news. All I see is an agenda. You report the stories you wish to make public and keep quiet about those which make you wince. Well, your credibility has gone right down the drain.
You may have forgotten that in the age of instant information we don't rely on you anymore. You are slanting your news right into irrelevance.
Do you in the media have any idea what your attacks might be doing to Bristol? Do you care? Do any of you have children? Would you want your child to have to go through any of this simply because of your politics? Where is your compassion!
There used to be a time when a reporter worked to publish a story because it was a newsworthy piece. I don't know what happened to the scruples that used to be a part of reporting the news. All I see is an agenda. You report the stories you wish to make public and keep quiet about those which make you wince. Well, your credibility has gone right down the drain.
You may have forgotten that in the age of instant information we don't rely on you anymore. You are slanting your news right into irrelevance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
