Try as I might, I just cannot wrap my mind around the possibility that this was just an innocent comment taken out of context. The media seems to have no problem defending Obama, but I have looked at this incident from all angles and I just cannot defend what was said in good conscience, nor can I be completely ignorant of its meaning. I been trying to spin this in every way possible, but even if I give Obama the benefit of the doubt, I still come to the conclusion that what was said was a huge lapse in judgment. Furthermore, his apparent refusal to apologize for the statement is equally disturbing and gives credence to my thought that the unfortunate utterance was, indeed, intended. On Tuesday night in Virginia during a town-hall style gathering for Obama, he said, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig.” The response of the crowd was one of laughter and thunderous applause. My response was quite different; that Obama just may have flushed his political aspirations down the crapper. Surely, this possible Commander-in-Chief couldn’t be that ignorant of what he just said, right? Right? I think any reasonable person, who truly didn’t mean to say what was said and misspoke, would see the crowds reaction, how it was received and quickly retract the statement, adding something to the likes of, “Whoa, I didn’t mean it that way, my bad,” or something similar. This of course was not the case and today he refused to apologize for the statement, saying that the media twisted it, as if drawing the conclusion that it was an attack on Sarah Palin was a completely illogical one. Let us all assume for a moment that this comment wasn’t made right on the heels of the RNC, where Sarah Palin mentioned her famous “pitbull in lipstick” line. Let us all say, rather, that it was made six months down the road, assuming we had the time, which we don’t because of the election in November. If this was the case though, I could see Obama’s argument that it was taken out of context or that people were overreacting and being hypersensitive. However, this is NOT the case. Instead, it hasn’t even been a week since Palin’s comment, where she mentioned both an animal and lipstick. Then, at this event, Obama mentions an animal and lipstick and we are expected to believe that it was an innocent coincidence. I was shocked, because I thought it was stupid, and surely Obama was smarter then that, but with how the media is writing it off, he may have been brilliant after all. People say his comment was in context and that’s why he couldn’t have meant it in such a way. I say, of course it was in context! He is an eloquent politician, and with his skill in dodging questions, I can completely see how he intended to say what he was feeling and have the ability to back out of it at any time because of this “in context” loophole. Truth is, he obviously wasn’t going to come out and say, “Sarah Palin is a pig.” No, Obama is more subtle and smarter than that and everyone has bought it hook line and sinker. We should also take a look at the crowd surrounding him. They, more than anybody watching on TV, would understand the context, and their response is very telling. They completely knew what he was saying, who it was to and why. They even stood up laughing and cheering, but we the public and media are being unreasonable when thinking this way? Obama didn’t even apologize to those who may have been offended, nor did he apologize to Sarah Palin for the comment. If I had said something on a national stage and didn’t mean how it was being interpreted, I would be so horrified that my statement was being perceived in such a way that I would be out in front of the media ASAP attempting to make amends and retracting or clarifying my statement. However, this is not what Obama is doing, rather he is just blaming the media and public for mishearing the exact words that came out of his mouth. Another argument being used to defend Obama is what could he have possibly gained by saying such a thing? Why would he say it? It makes no political sense, so therefore anyone who draws the conclusion that Obama meant it in a derogatory way is stupid. You can’t be serious! The conclusion is completely based in logic and reason, and it is not as if his words were really twisted; no it is word for word what he said himself. So what reason would he have for saying it? I doubt if Obama was still ahead in the polls this would have came out of his mouth at all. Truth is, he is beginning to panic and is feeling under pressure by Sarah Palin’s popularity and the Republican party gaining ground in the polls. He is angry and is responding just like millions and millions of other American’s would. His judgment is decreasing as his anger increases and if I were him and truly repentant I would be jumping at the chance to take it back, but he won’t because he is pissed and meant exactly what he said. To which of us has this never happened before? I have said several things in anger that I wish I could take back, but let us remember that just because it is said in anger doesn’t give anyone an excuse for uttering such things. No, the simple fact is that Obama is getting nervous and his tact is going out the window and I believe it will continue to happen if the Republicans keep improving in the polls. It was really quite genius of Obama if you think about it, he completely and explicitly expressed himself, and is brilliantly able to flip the blame elsewhere. Anyway you slice it though, what occurred was a huge lapse in judgment. It could also be said that it gives us real insight into Obama’s character and how he would respond under pressure. Yes, what he said is truly an old southern saying, but one Obama stretched and used to his advantage to express himself, his true feelings about Palin, and still have the ability to back out of his statement whenever anyone raised the issue. He must think people are stupid, but they aren’t and people are seeing through it, even if the media doesn’t want to.

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

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

Over the weekend it was announced that Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann would be stepping down as anchors from the election coverage and go back behind the commentary desk where they belong. As much as I hate to admit it, due to my disagreements with the men, they do have a right to express their views, but I believe an anchor position requires a tact and professionalism which lies beyond what Matthews and Olbermann were willing to provide to their audience. The need for quality reporting is especially true when one is covering such an important event like a political convention or election. Even amongst channels like CNN and Fox News, there are traits of political bias. However, there are a couple important differences between MSNBC, CNN and Fox News. The latter two keeps editorial commentators separate from anchor roles and provide ample guests and dialog along both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for MSNBC. Often, only the Democratic viewpoints are represented and vital information concerning the issues is frequently omitted. I, of course, have been complaining endlessly within my blog, e-mails to MSNBC and the Huffington Post (Who, by the way, felt my comments weren’t worth posting; probably because I wasn’t defecating on right wing ideology.) and apparently many others were as well, including those who actually work for NBC and MSNBC. The network finally took a couple steps to improve their election programming, but because there continually seems to be this innate underlying motif of misinformation, I still find them unbearable to watch. I will commend them though for removing Matthews and Olbermann from the anchor position. It’s a step in the right direction. The most amazing thing about this situation is that it gives a little confirmation to some of my past blog articles. So, perhaps my blog isn’t complete BS after all, though I do concede certainly most of it is. I don’t know whether to be encouraged by this or scared. Very scared.

While watching the news over the last couple days, I have to say I am quite shocked at the media’s rather unfair and cruel coverage of Sarah Palin, especially concerning her daughter. I thought when I quit watching MSNBC I could expect to get better coverage of events happening in our world, however this was not the case. Media is so bad that even investigative reporting seems to be taking a back seat to the queries of the average individual. You would think, since journalists are “professional” that they would want to give their audience a full understanding of events and facts. Sadly, I believe I am going to have to quit watching the news and find other sources other than televised news coverage. The media has been abuzz with the investigation of Sarah Palin in Alaska for supposedly using her power to have Commissioner Walt Monegan fired; seemingly, because he wouldn't fire Mike Wooten, the ex-husband of her sister. Sounds kind of bad, granted, but I felt there was a vital part to the story that was missing concerning the character of this person who was fired. Things like this person’s name, or what issues he was cited for were not readily available from cable news. These details were even hinted on over at CNN by Wolf Blitzer, but he instead actually said, “I won’t get into specifics.” That is your job Wolf, to give people specifics of the events you are covering and if your not going to do that then you should cease to “cover” them at all. I could reach the conclusion that this was just politically bias on their part, and maybe in their case it was, but Fox News was no better. A channel that leans to the right, you would think, would offer up this information, but I haven’t heard a thing about it. To find out about this person, I actually had to go to the Huffington Post and The Anchorage Daily News. A regional paper and one of the most blinding biased news sources available that frequently omits information and that too often, to support its own political ideals, trespasses over things like common decency and professionalism, had more information than that of CNN and FOX. Truth be told I would want this guy fired from the State Troopers as well. This officer of the law, one Mike Wooten, has been accused of using a taser on his 11 year old stepson, Sarah Palin’s nephew, in addition to illegally killing a moose, drinking beer in his patrol car, and telling friends his father-in-law would, “eat a f’ing bullet” if he helped his daughter get an attorney. He also threatened Governor Palin and he is lucky he just got fired and isn’t under investigation for child abuse, poaching, drunk driving and uttering a death threat.

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

It doesn’t excuse any illegal activity on Sarah Palin’s part, but what I want to know is to what degree a Governor can influence the firing of someone working within a State ran agency before it becomes illegal. I thought one of the duties of a Governor was to govern over the state and its various agencies; including the State Troopers. It is a cops duty to be a representative of the law, and this guy was obviously the complete antithesis of what a cop should be and I would want him fired too. It would be nice if details like these were provided in media reports, not to mention that these charges were only brought against Palin by former Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan after she had him fired, which makes the charges suspect because he didn’t feel the need to bring up these charges while under the States payroll. These concerns are legit and should be investigated, which Palin is welcoming as well. However, what isn’t is the pregnancy of Palin’s 17 year old daughter Bristol. This is absolutely disgusting how the media is treating this. Obama showed his civility and needs to be commended when he took the moral high road above the media saying, “People's families are off limits. People's children are especially off limits. They have no relevancy and I strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18." I agree with Obama and find it deplorable when someone’s political bias overrides ones human compassion. Bristol has to live with her own decisions and the consequences for them, and those decisions that were made were personal in nature. The responsibility falls on her alone and the media should stay away, or as Obama says, “back off,” because it isn’t like this girl has jumped in the public eye of her own accord and to drag her through the mud of media scrutiny is completely unwarranted and unfair. She is going to have enough challenges and hardship raising her child, now she has to worry about damaging her mother’s career. That is sick and twisted and people should turn their backs on any news organization that fails to think as real human beings and tries to twist this into something political. It appears that journalistic integrity is getting impossible to find nowadays. There are those who are Democrats and supposed supporters of Obama that are continuing in this debate, despite Obama coming out strongly against it. It goes to show that such people don’t really support Obama nor the Democratic party, who have both come out against attacks on Palin based on this, but really only serve to bash anything that is Republican. I have heard such people attack the Republican party and Palin, saying that it is hypocritical since the Republican party takes the moral high ground. As opposed to what? Isn’t that what every party tries, or should try to do, emphasize morality? If you don’t you should not be in office. People may differ on the definition of morality between the parties in some aspects, but to discredit a party as a whole, Democrat or Republican, or group of people and ideal because someone in relation to a politician makes a mistake, is to me so stupid that I have no patience for it. Nor do I have patience for these “journalists” who seem more like ambulance chasers, rejoicing in the misfortune and hardship of others. I loath such people and at the risk of sounding cliché, they should all be ashamed. I for one would find it difficult to sleep at night if I acted in such a way. What I also find offensive is this idea out there amongst some of the media that because her daughter is pregnant, that she is a horrible mother and if she can’t control even her family, how could she be expected to control the government? One of my hero’s Theodore Roosevelt put it best concerning his unruly daughter Alice, who was 100 fold worse than this situation with Bristol, when he said, “"I can either run the country or I can control Alice. I cannot possibly do both." Parents nowadays are unfairly ridiculed for the actions of their offspring. This is ridiculous and it must be remembered that what it really comes down to is personal responsibility and I wonder if any of these people attacking Palin concerning her daughter have any teenagers of their own. I doubt it.

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

I feel that one must give credit where credit is due, and with the third day of the Democratic National Convention, the Democrats do deserve a little. This was by far their most appealing day, and they nailed it with speeches from former President Bill Clinton and Obama's VP choice Joseph Biden. These two speeches were the definite highlight of the DNC thus far and in terms of political bounce, may even surpass Obama's speech at Invesco Stadium. I tuned into the festivities at the beginning of day three, and really tuned out for most of it till the highly anticipated moment when Clinton and Biden would step before the podium. However, there was one odd thing I would like to address concerning coverage of the convention. The news channel's paused for the Pledge of Allegiance and the Star Spangled Banner at the start of day three, which is highly respectable. CNN and Fox News both stopped there coverage as the men and women of the Democratic National Convention gave honor to the country that they represent. Sadly, MSNBC opted to focus on Keith Olbermann instead of the pledge and National Anthem because what he had to say obviously couldn’t wait. Though to be fair what was occurring on the floor was still visible through a small window located at the left of the screen. Maybe it is me, but I found this to be pretty distasteful, if not completely disrespectful. Thing is, I used to watch MSNBC a lot, because I felt they gave pretty fair news coverage. However, it has deteriorated considerably and what I once considered to be one of my favorite news journalists, Chris Matthews, has really shown how biased he really is during their "Decision 2008" coverage. Matthews and Olbermann even go so far as to attack Democratic strategists and the like for appearing on Fox News. Now, in my eyes, MSNBC’s journalistic integrity is nil. Perhaps they are nice guys off the TV, I don’t know, but how they have been conducting the news over at MSNBC is just deplorable. The DNC, as well as the upcoming RNC, are set up to be so spectacular and elaborate, that it will give the Super Bowl a run for its money. In fact, I am surprised they are not calling the current ongoing convention, "DNC MMVIII." The purpose for this is to build up ones emotion by appealing to the senses through various forms of visual and audio stimuli. We see this plot a lot within the arts, in things like concerts, movies, and plays. Obviously, it isn’t just confined to a creative aesthetic expression anymore, but rather to serve a purpose and it certainly does now within spectator sports and in the political arena. Those who have organized the DNC and RNC know this and it has become the core of the conventions because they realize that it is more beneficial to initiate an emotional response from the delegates and viewing audience, rather than to focus on, or provoke, any serious reflection, thought or juxtaposition of the candidates and the key issues. Certainly, we can look forward to seeing this ploy utilized later when Barack Obama takes the stage at Invesco. Center stage on the evening of the third day of DNC, however, belonged to Bill Clinton and Joseph Biden. As Bill took the stage and the cameras cut to Michelle Obama, I couldn't help but think that she looked a little nervous and awfully perturbed. Knowing what I know now, considering the Oscar worthy performance, I would have told Mrs. Obama to relax; that Clinton knows what he is doing and can lie with the best of them. Though, that really depends on your definition of what "lie" is. Cheap shot, yes I know, but it had to be done. I feel that Bill did a much better job on his speech than Hillary did at hers, but just like Hillary, I don't think Bill was really sincere. Not so much because of what he said last night, but because of what he HAS said in the past and his actions tomorrow; high tailing it out of Denver. This pretty much sums up Bill's feelings towards Obama, which are further confirmed in my mind by Michelle Obama's reaction to Clinton. Bill had no choice, he needed to do it for the good of the Democratic party, to protect his legacy, and for the good of his wife’s future political career. I believe he was successful concerning the speeches powerful delivery and what it was he had to accomplish. Republicans are going to have to try and counter the momentum with McCain's VP choice and the RNC. I may think Clinton gave a great speech, but I by no means agree with some of his points. He claims that the current administration is advocating an "assault on science," which I feel to be completely absurd. This claim is really only based on three things. One, of course, is that by pushing for more oil drilling they are hindering the expansion of different forms of energy, yet they leave out that this current administration has spent more money on developing alternative energy than any other administration. Second, decreased funding for space exploration. Enough said. Third, stem cell research. Yet science, which Bush is assaulting, is still advancing and has just discovered they may be able to gather stem cells from adults rather than embryo's. It is amazing that they were able to make that discovery while the science “war” rages. Surely, the scientists must be extremely dedicated. He stated that our unilateralism has damaged our relationships abroad. I believe this statement to be an unfair generalization of what has really occurred in the world during the Bush administration. I do not believe that leadership should be based on intimidation, yet diplomacy seems to be a form of timidity in times of danger. I believe, for the most part, that we can classify Clinton's administration for being too timid, for when they should have rose up against the enemies who were attacking our citizens on our soil and fought against those detonating bombs among our military and embassies overseas. We only went into Iraq when the UN dropped the ball and I feel at the time it was a reasonable call to make. Were there mistakes? Hell yes! Not everything that happened concerning Iraq went according to plan, but it is easy to criticize, when we the public can easily change our minds on issues and don't have a country under us to defend. Theodore Roosevelt provided one of my favorite quotes in a speech given April 23, 1910:

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

A couple other points he made were on AIDS and the military. Clinton told the delegates, and Chevy Chase who was in attendance, that Obama would continue the battle against HIV and AIDS at home and across the world. An effort attributed to Bush that started in 2005 with the passing of a 2.9 Billion dollar program to fight the disease. Secondly, Clinton said that Obama would strengthen our military, yet I don't really know how that is possible since Obama himself stated that he would “slow our development of future combat systems.” Finally, Clinton told the audience that Obama was ready to lead and that under him America would develop back into what it was during the Clinton administration. It was such a great speech with such great hype, that despite all the disagreements I have with Clinton and what he said, I almost wanted forget about the issues when it comes to the individuals of Barack Obama and John McCain. Finally, it was Biden's turn and he himself provided a great speech, which played off the momentum of Clinton and it too was near perfect in its delivery. However, I found it was packed full of political messages and attacks that made no sense to me. That is not to say he didn't raise some good points. I think he did and he made a much better case against McCain than anyone else has, but there are a number things I also had issue with. Biden started out by introducing his mother, which was sweet, and told the crowd that he was raised under the principle that one was defined by honor, redeemed by loyalty and that bravery lives in every heart. She sounds like a great woman and its too bad that she isn't running considering how her son has manifest these principles in his own life, not only in his relationship with John McCain, but also lying on documents and plagiarizing other political speeches, which Barack Obama himself did when he asked America if they were better off since Bush. This is an almost verbatim rip-off of President Reagan, who posed one of the most provocative questions in American political history, when in 1980 he asked the American public in a debate with Jimmy Carter, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" This one question cost Jimmy Carter his second term. I do not like it when Politicians contradict themselves. Biden stated that his mother taught him that anyone can make it if you just try hard enough and that this was the American dream. Yet, this is not the kind of message we hear from the Democratic party. Rather, Biden during the remainder of his speech, and in fact the whole party in general, seem to push the idea that opportunity is rare in this country and I just don't see the evidence for that. I do see evidence though that this country offers more opportunity than any other place on the face of the globe. Biden continued saying that Obama moved to Chicago after turning down a job on Wall Street, seemingly based on his concern for others. This has been stated several times in promoting the Obama cause, yet I still have not found out exactly what job he supposedly turned down. I am sure that Obama helped a lot of people in Chicago, I am not refuting that, but to suggest that he didn't take his own political and professional career into account when making the move makes absolutely no sense. Furthermore, with the picture they are painting, I don't know why I would want to vote for someone who makes rash decisions despite loads of data suggesting you should do otherwise. That doesn't sound appealing to me in the context of a President. America is less secure and more isolated than EVER before, Biden said. He forgets little details and things like…, oh the American Revolution for instance. Also, the statement, for some reason, doesn’t take into account that we have not been attacked again since 9/11. I consider that a sign that we are very secure, but that’s just me. While listening to the DNC speeches, it becomes clear that Democrats are the anti-war party, and really who wouldn't want to be anti- war? Well, it seems they are anti-war except when it comes to Russia, then all the anti-war and diplomacy talk on the democratic side begins to break down. Then Biden attacks Bush saying that he is not doing enough and needs to take a stand against Russia, because diplomatic channels aren’t apparently enough. Dah! Russia is not a country you rush into war with. Are you nuts? Yes, hold them accountable, but don't say we haven't done anything, when your candidate won't even interrupt his golf game to go on TV to condemn Russia. Instead, its McCain who was on the TV that very morning condemning the invasion of Georgia. They say that we need diplomacy in the world with our enemies, yet make an exception with Russia. Why? Well, obviously because Bush is moving along those channels and it all of a sudden becomes very wrong. I know amongst all these different nations there are separate issues and variables when it comes to foreign relations, but it seems like complete lunacy that when Bush is practicing something they clearly advocate and push in an almost absolute context, they reverse their opinion and somehow make a distinction between the cited situation and their innate policy. This is a complete political spin designed to make one party look bad, the other good and nothing more. There is no consistency in their thinking and that’s what I have an issue with. The only variables that seem to determine if something is good or bad is if it is beneficial for their party and if the opposite party is engaging in it. This goes with the Republicans too. This is crap and there has to be a smarter way to practice politics! Another thing Biden cited was how the Bush administration has shifted its plan to Barack Obama's concerning negotiations with Iran. What they fail to mention is the variable of preconditions, which makes the two examples diametrically different. We as the United States of America need to portray an image of authority if we really want to influence countries like Iran. How are we supposed to do that if we cower to any conditions an opposing violent country such as Iran puts forth. In the eyes of their own government, media and people, by propaganda, they will see America as weak, which will be a large boost to their cause, and diminish the effect and influence of ours. It is irresponsible to give countries like Iran undeserved credit and assume that they will act peacefully and receive us in a civil manner. It is not going to happen. Lastly, Biden spoke concerning the war in Iraq, that the Bush administration has again shifted its plan to Barack Obama's. This comes down to conditions too. Again, the two policies are completely different from each other. The Obama plan has a flat, concrete timeline that ignores any conditions on the ground, while the Bush plan calls for a conditions based withdraw. That is a HUGE difference. To me the question that comes to mind when hearing this is if they are really that stupid that they don't know these things or if they are omitting these details from the American people to accomplish their own goals. Either way its horrible, but I think the latter is correct. On a positive note though; at least with either plan the troops get closer and closer to coming home. Anyways, Biden did raise a couple arguments against McCain that I agree with. One of those is taxes. Coming from a family that owns a small business and is in the highest tax bracket, where just about 40% of our income goes back into the pockets of the federal government; I really have to wonder why families in similar situations, for our family knows of quite a few, aren't getting any help concerning taxs. The McCain tax plan seems to create a rather large paradox by saying larger companies getting tax cuts will provide more jobs. Maybe that’s true, but what about the small businesses that, with tax cuts, could grow and provide more jobs to more people. Instead, it seems the high tax bracket for small business makes it difficult for a business to expand and provide jobs. I don't want success to be punished, but I don't want productivity to be hindered either. What must the Republicans do on Monday in St. Paul? Well, the DNC has thus far been very scarce in pushing the merits of Barack Obama. Instead, all the vast majority of positive Obama messages is spoken in generalities. The Republicans, to sway voters, need to make sure that they do the exact opposite. McCain, because he can’t win on charisma, must express to the American people the specific merits of a McCain presidency on individual issues and juxtapose them with the stance the other camp subscribes to. I am sick of hearing all this bashing all the time, so if he keeps it short and sweet and about him, then I think it would go a long way. Everyone has already heard the arguments from both sides on why shouldn’t I vote for someone, but now the other side of the spectrum needs to be addressed; why should I vote for you?

The other night I am causally watching the DNC, doing my usual cable news channel rotation to, not only get a full spectrum of the media interpretation, but also to avoid the commercials as much as humanly possible. I turn it to Fox News and I witness a group of protesters known idiotically as, "Remake ‘68," about to rough up the Fox News reporter Griff Jenkins. It really makes evident what a sad state the art of protesting really is in. Sure, there have always been blunders, such as Chicago ’68, the incident “Remake ‘68” is named from, but as time moves forward on its endless march, protesting seems to be getting worse and worse. Much like the band Chicago.
I think an obscure, unknown Brit named Matthew Knowles from the Society of British Aerospace Companies put it best, when after a recent British protest he said, "These stunts are becoming tiresome and do nothing more than peddle inaccurate propaganda." I will not go so far as apply this statement as an absolute concerning protesters, but I will concede that it certainly does feel this way. Truly, protests seem to have lost any ability they might have had to inspire and move people, not only because of more powerful abundant forms of media, but more so due to the actions of some the protesters. Too often their goal is to express themselves, not in a peaceful protest, but with strife between themselves and those they oppose. Further popular targets include, anyone who challenges their views, media, bystanders, and their choice of venue and its inhabitants. Their reasoning is that by causing a ruckus they can bring further attention to their cause. However, all such protests only succeed in taking the focus off their message, to some degree discrediting it and those who follow it, and even reflecting poorly on protesting in general.
This was certainly the case with the far-left “Remake ‘68” protest, which got out of control when a Fox News camera showed up. A lot of swearing, shoving and pushing ensued and I am glad that nobody was hurt in the fiasco. I believe a frequent use of profanity and violence, such as the kind “Remake ‘68” engaged in, can denote a lack of intelligence and certainly, with those people I believe this truly was the case. “Remake ‘68” would have rivaled Nazi Germany with their civility. If they can't handle people with differing viewpoints, I suggest they leave the country and go somewhere where it is moderated by a dictatorship form of government. These people, by the way they have acted, heavily defecated on their own cause and if there were any peaceful protesters there, then their time was completely wasted by the actions of the pathetic mob.
Why is it that the anti-war groups who protest violence often resort to it when confronted by a conflicting viewpoint? Isn't this the exact antithesis of what they claim to be proponents of? “Remake ‘68” obviously was promoting an anti-war ideal, but yet came prepared for violence, naming themselves after the protest that turned violent in ‘68, and wearing masks to hide their identity. The message, the masks, and the name of the protest itself, lead me to conclude that peaceful protesters were few in number, if there were any at all.
People today are prone to picking and choosing the freedoms that should be available to each individual. The range of the rights you receive, in the eyes of others, varies depending on your values. They only want people to have the freedom that is convenient to them or lines up in relation to their own beliefs. You can't pick and choose with things like freedom. It has to be all encompassing, and an innate right of every person whether you agree with them or not on political or social issues. This is the concept that is behind our nation and our system of government; to protect the rights of each individual. What gets me is how out of touch some of these protesters are. They are often ignorant or misinformed on how the political and social world works, often promoting ideas that may sound good, but only in concept and would never be successful in a real world application.
We see insane protests all over the political spectrum. For instance, the far-right religious loons who go out and protest at soldiers funerals citing God's punishment and causing unneeded grief and pain for the mourning friends and family. The far-left whack jobs that promote things like violence, anarchy and rioting causing unnecessary trouble for the police and local government, while the whole time they talk of freedom and an anti-war agenda. These instances give protesting a bad name and a reputation that drains respect from anyone who protests peacefully. I have no problem with people who want to speak their mind and organize a protest, but your actions must be consistent with your message, done with respect and without infringing on anyone else’s rights. If these things occur then you lose my respect, the respect of many others and forfeit your cause.
Finally, to close; all the Fox News bashing is getting extremely cliche and really damn old. I can't even look up porn anymore, or hilarious videos of animals getting hurt without someone on the comment page turning it around and using it as an excuse to say FU to Fox News. Truth is, Fox News does something every other news and TV station does: caters to a demographic. It is how media works. If you don't like it; don't watch it. Easy. You don't see me bitching about Lifetime, because I got my Will and Grace fill years ago and I don't have to tune in. I seriously doubt that people who complain about Fox have ever even really watched it, and they are probably just feeding off other people who have the same political views as them and they just can't stand the fact that other viewpoints are being represented within the media. My thoughts on this are usually confirmed when people are confronted about why they hate Fox News. They can never really cite any specific examples. Yeah, Yeah, Fox News sucks, okay I got it, now shut up and get back on your X-Box emo boy!

Barack Obama is one of the most powerful political speakers in history as far as I am concerned, and he really seems to be a nice guy when watching him in interviews, give speeches and interact with the public. He has this awesome charismatic energy that I feel we need in a president, yet I find myself still hesitant. Why? Obama seems to dance around questions way to much for my liking, concerning his past, what he feels in the present and his plans for the future. I am not the only one to think these things, and when Obama is pressed by media to answer such questions, he never does. Rather, he seems to dance around them, albeit skillfully, and usually resorts to attacking the person asking them, or his political rivals. For me these questions are an important issue, and I want to know what the candidate believes and why.

Now, an admitted right-wing author has come out with a book entitled “The Obama Nation” addressing some of these questions. and the book supposedly supplies many of the answers that Obama seems unwilling to and address. Furthermore, the book makes a case, or attempts to, that Barak should not be president. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have not read the book, but I have read Obama’s and others responses to it, and it seems we may be getting the same old political run around. Slight-of-hand and misdirection. What I want to hear from Obama is a solid rebuttal, including cited evidence that one may use to be able to make a more informed decision in November, and what Obama needs to do to convince me and others to vote for him is just be clear on who he is. At least I know a lot about McCain, but I don’t feel like I know anything about Obama because though he refutes any negative attack, but does not answer them, never offering up facts to the contrary. Despite his statements that tend to begin with, “I have consistently stated," he frequently seems to contradict himself on key issues.

I guess the main impression I have been getting from him recently, which is making me step back and take a harder look at the Obama campaign, is that he seems put on a persona and share a message that is exactly parallel to those whom he is speaking to, and the message and persona change once the audience does. However, those that bring up these questions to him are met with a condescending attitude, which is a shame. Obama needs to quit tap dancing around issues, which I admit he does rather skillfully, and be honest with the media and the people, which I feel is an area he is lacking.

Again, with Jerome Corsi's book, “The Obama Nation,” we aren’t seeing a rebuttal of the issues brought forth, but rather arguments that use misdirection to distract from the issues mentioned within the books text. More than a couple responses don’t address the claims the book makes, but instead attacks the books author. The quote, “The author is a fringe bigot pedaling rehashed lies,” doesn't do anything to refute what the book says, but attempts to distract from the book citing the authors past and the fact that he is citing arguments that are frequently brought up, which for some reason means to the Obama camp that it doesn't warrant a response. What? I feel when a concern is brought up frequently it doesn’t mean the issue doesn’t have any merit, as this quote seems to suggest. Quite the opposite. In fact, such concerns should be dealt with more vigorously rather than ignored, which the Obama camp seems to be doing.

The book also claims that he was raised a Muslim, and attended a radical, black church, secretly having a "black rage" hidden beneath the surface. Obama’s supporters answer by saying Obama is a Christian who attended Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and that the statements are false. We all know who led the Trinity United Church of Christ and that was the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. So in my mind this argument really doesn’t make any sense and is rather complimentary to some of the arguments.

Anything else? Yes. According to Obama’s Spokesman. Tommy Vietor, “Jerome Corsi is a discredited liar who is pedaling another piece of garbage to continue the Bush-Cheney politics he helped perpetuate four years ago. His is just one of what will likely be many more lie-filled books rushed to print this election cycle, which are cobbled together from debunked Internet sources to make money and advance a partisan agenda. We will respond to these smears forcefully with all means at our disposal." Ok, now even if Corsi is scum of the earth, and I certainly haven’t liked some of the things he has said in the past, it still doesn’t answer Corsi’s charges against Obama. More misdirection.

Another charge is that Obama was raised within the Islam faith, which is the biggest religion in Indonesia where he spent some of his childhood, and the Obama camp responds that Obama is Christian and the Koran was learned in accordance with the curriculum of some of the public and catholic schools he attended. Seems a little enigmatic, for both religions may be pacified by the statement. However, I think Obama’s answer becomes negated when he himself says things like “the semon on the mount is radical.” What it really boils down to is, “Yeah, I am a Christian, except for all those points Christ makes, other then that...” That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, so I wind up with no evidence contradictory to the fact that Obama isn’t putting on the guise of religion to gain votes. I would like to believe that’s not true because if it is, it so low down and dirty, that such a person should not have any seat in politics at all. I mean, I could call myself the burger king all I want, but it don’t make it so.

The last issue is Corsi’s charge that Obama would weaken the military. Obama supporters point out that Obama wants to add 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines. Now when reading their answer we need to take a couple things into account. One, the move to add 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines isn’t his plan. Its already in motion, so he really isn’t doing anything at all, just standing alongside a decision that’s already occurring. So, now the question becomes what will happen to our military when the decision is his to make. According to Obama, he would “slow our development of future combat systems”, which to me sounds like it would weaken our military unless other countries stop their military development as well, which I doubt is going to be the case.

The press is even attacking Corsi in a very superficial way that is embarrassing to all journalism, saying he works for a news organization that ran the headline, “Astonishing photo claims: Dead Bigfoot stored on ice." So what? A lot of people have been writing on the Bigfoot story, including my blog…yeah! So that’s a non issue; I think anyway. Right? Is it bad I wrote a blog article on Bigfoot? Crap.

Anyway, Obama is a great dynamic speaker. Definitely one of the best in history, however there are plenty of con-men in prison throughout the world that were good speakers too and got what they wanted out of people by telling them what they wanted to hear. I’m not saying that Obama is a con man, I am merely pointing out that just because someone sounds good, doesn’t mean they will make a good president. What I want to know is who he is and where he stands on the issues. That information seems so all over the place that I have no idea who Obama is and I would really like to get some clarification on that.

It may seem unfair that I tend to bring up Obama more in this blog than McCain, but that’s only because I have more questions about Obama than McCain. I know who McCain is, what he stands for, and what he wants to accomplish if he gains the presidency. He is pretty candid about it, even when he gets asked a question he doesn’t know, or hasn’t studied, he says- “I haven’t looked into it enough.” Yes, probably not what a person wants to hear from a potential commander in chief, however it is honest. (The issue addressed, by the way, was from Planned Parenthood who wanted to know if McCain would allow birth control to be covered by Medicare like Viagra.)

I guarantee people are starting to feel the same way I am, because it shows in the polls and if I am thinking this way, being not the brightest person, how many more people are wondering about Obama’s stance on the issues? I would say he needs to quit blaming the media and McCain and just come out with it. Flat. Simple. Concrete. With no misdirection concerning what an jerk the reporter may or may not be, or what his competition is doing, but focus and answer on what his core values are. Go on Fox News, don’t be afraid of tough questions, give Katie Couric strait answers and your polls may go up.(I was talking to him there because I am positive, in my mind, that he is reading.)

Oh!!! Obama nation. Abomination. I get it. That’s real cute…

It has recently come to pass that John Edwards has admitted to an extra-marital affair. Now, left wing sympathizers who have political aspirations and credentials, including John Edwards himself, and those within the media are now criticizing the coverage of the scandal, saying that it hypocritical because John McCain is guilty of the same thing. Fox News of course being the target of the attacks, but thats no surprise. Everything is blamed on Fox News nowadays because apparently people with different viewpoints aren't allowed to have representation within the media. Its only a matter of time before global warming, murder and rape is pinned on them. Back to the Edwards-McCain thing however, I would like to sit these people down and explain a few things to them. Why is logic and reason within the media so rare these days?

The funny thing is that they seem to be presupposing that McCain cheating on his wife wasn't raised as an issue beforehand, though I knew about it, and so did others I am sure. Surely, me being an idiot, wasn't the only one to be aware of this, and knew it way before the Edward's scandal broke. Those on the left, who I may be unfairly singling out and if this is the case I apologize, but it is they who are raising the issue the most from my vantage point, also tend to forget it wasn't Fox News (the channel most often cited in the complaints) who broke the story, but rather ABC. One of the biggest things that is overlooked is the very nature of the News and its reporting.

Journalists out of all people should know that what they deal with is current events, which is another name people often give to the news. This is why we frequently don't have stories running on CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, or FOX concerning the discovery of the New World, the Boston Tea Party and the Tet offensive. Though these may be referenced from time to time, it is always in the context of a more current story that past events are mentioned. This is certainly true when McCain began his run for the presidency, this issue was brought up several times on different networks. However, because the public really didn't consider it a scandal for one reason or another, most networks dropped it. This is another thing journalists are forgetting; public interest frequently drives the news. I also love how all media coverage in this case seems to be personified by Fox News, when other networks chose not to run the story either, even "left-wing networks" like CNN.

What is also forgotten is the big difference between how both men handled the story. McCain didn't lie to the American public concerning the affair, which doesn't make the affair ok, let me just make that clear. Yes, it is true some say he lied concering the timeline and sequence of events in relation to his affair, but he didn't, as far as I can tell by my research, say it never happened at all. This is in sharp contrast to what Edwards did, he lied saying it didn't happen when it in fact it did. The Edwards situation, being more current, OF COURSE made bigger headlines. DUH. Anyone saying that it goes beyond that is really fishing for something that isn't there in my humble opinion. Maybe the public is just sick of politicians lying to them.

 

I am getting so sick of politicians and the media engaging in this campaign of misdirection. Using Edwards as an example, in his ABC (thats right ABC not FOX) interview, he said paraphrased, that he was annoyed that he was a big deal, but that nobody pointed out McCain. It's time we see through all this slight-of-hand and misdirection manipulation. No, don't look at what I did wrong, look at this guy over here, or these people over here who are choosing to air it. We could play that game forever shifting back from both Republican and Democrat, Edwards to Bill Clinton, but in the end it is irrelevant. It doesn't negate ones personal responsibility for their actions. Edwards, of course, isn't the only one who does this; just watch interviews with politicians when they get a question they don't want to answer. Misdirection is frequently used to put the focus on something else, and news anchors usually fall for it, which really gets me. Another argument is that because so many people cheat, is it really a big deal? Should we hold politicians to a higher standard? Ummm...YES! Of course! They are representing the people, and I would go as far to say that anyone in authority or who has higher responsibility needs to be held at a higher standard. Period! Preacher, Judge, Police Cheif or Politician all need to be subject to this rule.

That being said I am not excusing McCain of his actions, and in fact I find it awfully sad that ones libido often takes precedence over love this day in age. However, it is beyond me, the media, or other politicians in deciding the level of importance one holds such indiscretions when they go to the polling booth in November. One thing I do know though, despite what some people may say, Edwards affair is legitimate news, for it is current and it concerns someone in the political arena. One needs to know that if you get in the political game, your going to be focused on and higher scrutiny is going to be placed upon you. This includes even your family members, Obama. Just a word of warning.