Are you kidding me?

Well, John Edwards, you've outdone yourself.

"Pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead."

That's one of the most racist comments I've heard in a long time...

Why are liberals and the drive-by media so obsessed with black people being... well, black?

Today, 60 Minutes aired an exclusive interview with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
The primary focus? His African-American heritage. One of the most frustrating things this newscast brought to light was that Justice Thomas is seen as a sell-out who joined the Republican party to be rewarded with a seat on the high court because of affirmative action.




I was impressed by Justice Thomas. He realized that his Yale law degree wasn't worth as much because he was accepted so that Yale could fill their designated minority seats. In his new book, My Grandfather's Son, Thomas says that his Yale law degree is worth 15 cents.

And, when it comes to helping people, Justice Thomas says that he wants to help all people.

Justice Thomas truly believes that law should be colorblind, unlike certain other self proclaimed opponents of racism.

All I have to say to the liberals and drive-by media in regards to their opinions of black people:
Give them a little more credit than that.

BOOK REVIEW: News That Matters: Television and American Opinion

News That Matters: Television and American Opinion is a great book to read if you're interested in discovering more about the media's effects on people's opinions as well as the agenda-setting nature of the media.




Hopefully most people recognize that what the media tells us is not always true, or at least that it doesn't always match up with what the actual current situation of the world.

One of my favorite quotes from the book:
"It is one thing to learn from the CBS Evening News that serious crime is on the increase in the United States; quite another to be mugged on the way to the corner grocery store. In reaching judgments about national problems, how do Americans take into account these very different types of evidence-- evidence from television news, on the one hand, and from their personal experiences, on the other?"

The authors (Shanto Iyengar & Donald Kinder) claim that the media does partake in agenda-setting and that the media does influence the priorities Americans assign to national problems. However, they take this a step farther and introduce a concept called priming which refers to changes in standards that people use to make political evaluations.

A huge point made within the priming discussion is that the more television coverage intereprets events as though they were the result of the president's actions, the more influential such coverage will be in priming the public's assessment of the president's performance. So, take for example the 1982 recession. Was this because of President's Reagan's policies, or because of his predecessors? Or did it have anything at all to do with the presidency? The more the media connects the president with something such as an economic recession, the more people think it is of the president's responsibility.

Think about this: how often do we passively connect a person in an important position to an event? In Florida, a boy (Martin Lee Anderson) was killed by guards while in bootcamp. Though Governor Jeb Bush had no real involvement in the case (as it was a county bootcamp- Bay County to be exact), when students from Florida State University, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University and Tallahassee Community College (accompanied by none other than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) became outraged when they learned that no real action had been taken, it was Gov. Bush's office that was raided by these people proclaiming "justice delayed is justice denied."

We always seem to want to place the blame on the highest authority figure, even if that person shouldn't be the one punished. Though I do believe that responsibility ultimately rests in the hands of the "president" (read= the person who is in charge overall), I think we all too often rush to blame the wrong people. And by doing so, what does get done regarding the situation is done in an inefficient, untimely manner.


Oh... If you're interested, I received an email about me.dium. It is an add-on to your web browser that allows you to chat with others in your browser window and allows you to voluntarily share the sites you are visiting with others. Apparently this will be available, and good to use, during the MTV/MySpace "Presidential Dialogues."


To join, visit www.me.dium.com

Rock the Vote...

The "digital age," as it is referred to, is most definitely showing its presence in the 2008 Presidential election.


One Example:



Most people know that MTV implemented rock the vote to increase the number of people between the ages of 18 and 24 to actually go out and vote during the 2004 election.
This time around, MTV has teamed up with MySpace for "Presidential Dialogues."
Basically, the all of the major Democratic and Republican candidates for POTUS will answer "candid and unfiltered" questions asked by young viewers. The events will take place on college campuses but will be aired on MTV, MTVu as well as MySpace and MTV.com. Questions can be submitted via MySpaceIM, cell phone, and email.

The purpose of this is to allow home viewers along with the live audience interact with the candidates in real time.

"For years, young people have trusted MTV to inform and engage them on the issues that matter most, from politics to sexual health to the environment," said MTV President Christina Norman.
scary...

And, who is going to be the first candidate to participate?

John Edwards, of course.

Another Example:

The first online-only Democratic presidential debate took place recently. Hosted by Yahoo!, the Huffington Post and Slate, the candidates were interviewed and their responses were aired via internet. 3 out of 4 topics of the questions were chosen by voters, and the last topic was a wild card in which a question from any topic could be asked.

According to a Yahoo! poll afterwards on who won, Barack Obama received the most votes with Hillary Clinton as a close 2nd.

It will be interesting to see the affects of these "digital age" political events... I think it is a bit too early to begin to analyze what these particular events will cause, but I also believe that they will serve to get more people informed and involved, at least those who watch MTV.

In other news, there was an interesting story on NYTimes.com today about the "fallacy of the netroots."

And the Politico broke a story about censorship on behalf of the Clinton campaign with regards to GQ magazine.

Most interestingly, though, Alan Combs believes that Ahmadinejad is a conservative.

And finally, my thoughts:
I know this is not relatively recent, but still...
Rudy Giuliani's wife called during his speech to the NRA? What?

Times are Changin'

The 2006 mid-term election highlighted the effects of “new media.” For instance, Senate candidate George Allen’s particularly bad moment infiltrated the internet and ultimately helped him lose.

But, without YouTube and the blogosphere, how would have Allen’s “Macaca Moment,” and other stories perpetuated by blogs (ie Mark Foley), spread so far so fast?

In We the Media, Dan Gillmor describes this “new media” and its effects. One of the biggest effects is that people who were once merely among the audience can now be the broadcasters of news and information. Anyone can start and maintain a blog and anyone can sign up for a YouTube account.

But what does this have to do with times changing? Well, people with different backgrounds than the journalists of CNN, FOX News, NY Times, Washington Post, etc, can disseminate information and their opinions via the internet. Not only are there websites for conservatives/liberals respectively, but there are blogs from the perspective of wives, young adults, fashion addicts and other niches. This expands the viewpoints we can learn of and from, which in turn widens our view of subjects and issues.

We are also able to receive pertinent information that the mainstream media may not be the best medium to give. People may be near a TV when CNN is showing a video of a politician doing something stupid, but with the internet, those who miss the CNN viewing can access the video when they are free to watch it.

But, be reasonable and responsible! Don’t believe everything you read…

Going on with the idea of anyone contributing, here are a few programs sponsored by mainstream media sources to engage audience members... or to seemingly desire the input of the audience:

1. Send in investigative videos, ask “tough questions” or utilize iCaught at ABC

2. Comment on the Tampa Bay Buzzblog

3. Ask a Presidential Candidate a question via the CNN YouTube debates

Fred Thompson is doing something similar… ask him a question and he’ll answer it via a video on his website. But now I must provide this link and encourage you to use it.

On a departing note,



is more dangerous an offensive than



????!!!!

Freedom and "Desent"

For the record, I am not against people speaking their minds. I myself am not afraid to let my opinions be known. But I do think there is a clear line that distinguishes "free speech" and "fighting words."

For example:
PROTEST: Leftists Protest a 9/11 Memorial


Now I see why Nancy Pelosi is San Francisco's representative. (Kidding, kidding.)

Besides making my stomach drop, this video allows for the beliefs of these members of the "Revolutionary Communist Party of America" to be known world-wide. It also informs people that the group actually exists.

The video was posted on conservative blogs such as Truth Caucus and CR Nation. The significance here is that these blogs are actually products of college republicans (people generally between the ages of 18 and 25). This age range is one of the most sought after voting blocs by both (or should I say all?) parties because they are up-and-coming voters that could significantly help or hurt a party. Also, the people who fall between these ages are more likely to participate in grassroots activities such as phone banking and precinct walking. Despite the fact that both parties need the efforts (and votes) of young people, the parties seemed to be more concerned with, in effect, brainwashing us with their ideas instead of reaching out to us to understand what we want and going from there to gain our votes. The "blogosphere" allows us to say what we want, what we like/dislike and how we feel regarding issues.

Continuing with the discussion of protests:



I actually went to this protest... not to participate (in this or the counterprotest), but to see the other side's point of view and understand why they do what they do.

Unfortunately, the only thing that stuck out to me was the anti-war protesters yelling obscenities and "you're stupid" to a man who was doing the same thing they were: letting his opinions be known. I was disheartened by the fact that a group of people who claim to want freedom and the right to "desent" (as spelled on an anti-war poster) did not want a fellow dissenter to have the freedom to say what he wanted. Instead they tried to censor him by yelling "you're annoying," and another man actually used the back of his anti-war sign to write "dumb ass" with an arrow pointing in the direction of the "annoying" person.

Oh, and the organizers of this march stopped the HIPS (helping innocent prostitutes survive) group from protesting with their song and dance ahead of the "contingent" (aka 10) of Iraq veterans who were the stars of the protest.

Seems like censorship to me.

Have You Forgotten?

Today, on the eve of the six year anniversary of 9/11, congress heard Gen. Petraeus' Iraq progress report. While Democrats were accusing Gen. Petraeus of being Bush's lackey and Republicans complained about a NY Times ad sponsored by MoveOn.org that quipped "General Petraeus or General Betray Us," a story broke of another Bin Laden video being published shortly. The video will show the last will and testament of a 9/11 hijacker.

Before the internet, access to such videos would be hard to come by. But the fact that this video testament will be available on the anniversary of 9/11 shows just how much Bin Laden and Islamic Fascists hate America and take pride in giving our country it's worst day in recent history.

But what amazes me the most is that politicians have caused Americans to stray away from the unification we felt that September morning and the months following. I'm not blaming the Democrats, though they obviously have played a huge role. But with the 2008 election already being in full force and the issue of the war being brought up constantly, I'm frustrated because we as Americans are being inundated with rhetoric but politicians on both sides are so concerned about an election that is just over a year away that nothing is really being accomplished.

Here's my opinion:


Six years is a relatively short amount of time to be at war against Islamic Fascists and be able to win. It takes Al-Qaeda longer to perfectly plot a terrorist attack. Let me explain. We're not at war against Iraqis. We're not at war against terror. Terror is a means, not an institution. We're at war against Islamic Fascists that hate America because they are taught from a young age that America is evil. These people want to destroy our country and kill as many of us as they can. Why? Because they believe it will further their standing in what they believe is "heaven." So, President Bush and other republicans are constantly scrutinized for putting soldiers (who, by the way, volunteer to be in the military) and moderate Muslim Iraqis (who are just as targeted by Osama as we are) in danger, but Muslims who believe that killing thousands of innocent people while at the same time committing suicide in order to advance themselves in "heaven" should be left alone?

And there are pictures like this going around? Unbelievable.

I'll leave you with these thoughts from the video...
If we pull out now, everything I've sacrificed will mean nothing.
They attacked us...
It's no time to quit, it's not time for politics.

Welcome!

Well, this is my first venture in to the "blogosphere," but hopefully this project will turn out okay.


So, the first topic:

Tonight's Republican Presidential Debate in NH.

a few of thoughts...
1. On the issue of immigration, the candidates agree that illegal immigration is a problem, but they all seemed to have different ideas as to how to go about fixing the problem. I found this refreshing, especially because of all of the back-patting that many of the candidates did with regard to John McCain and his position on the war and his experience in the military. However, I wish there was more discussion and academic debate amongst the candidates as opposed to finger-pointing and opponent bashing. Many of them had strong ideas, but in order for anyone's idea to come to fruition, the idea needs to be fully thought through and all options should be studied. I'm not saying that any one candidate hasn't done his research, but it seemed that most of them were anxious to attack instead of being open to other insights.

2. Although Fred Thompson chose not to be a part of the debate, a statement of his regarding crime in NYC was brought up. Giuliani responded by saying that Thompson would be "safer in NYC that in Boston," a blatant attack on Romney... but why? Every answer Giuliani gives, whether it is regarding crime or not, somehow strays to how he reduced crime in "the most dangerous city." So why did he find this to be an opportunity to attack one of his opponents? It seemed to me that Rudy did a lot of attacking, and I suppose as the "national front runner" he may need to from time to time. But I found it interesting that the people he attacked the most were his closest competitors. He kissed up to John McCain, even going so far as to say that he himself would support McCain if he (the self proclaimed best candidate)were not in the race. But McCain's ship is sinking... he can't raise money, he's falling behind in the polls and one of his most steadfast supporters in Florida has even moved on to other candidates (including Rudy and Fred.)

3. How interesting was it when people in that restaurant asked questions to the candidates? This opportunity allowed NH primary voters to show their support, or lack thereof, of particular candidates and also to ask questions that they, the voters, want answered. This situation could have also given a unique insight into the minds of voters, other than what the media outlets tell us is on the voters' minds. However, I have to wonder if the questions were screened? One NH police officer let Romney know that he and his wife were highly offended by Romney's comparison of his sons working for his campaign to those who serve in the military. However, Romney had already apologized for this misstatement. I'm sure that the man and his wife were offended, but why was he put on camera? The same goes for the Poly Sci student who questioned Rudy's family life and said that Rudy's family was not of the same quality or standard as Mitt's. Why this question? Is the media actually in tune with the voters, or are the voters' minds conformed by what the media tells them they should be concerned about?

On a closing note, I leave you with this:

The course of the 2008 election will most definitely be amended because of new media (blogs, youtube, cameraphones...) For example, a huge disappointment for Senator Brownback (and his few supporters) was unveiled to the public via internet... but would as many people know of this event if it were not for www.drudgereport.com? I think not.

Link to the Brownback picture: http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070904/480/5ca0cf5624ad4cb59c18a7e2ebe0f469

Questions, Comments, Concerns welcome.


Until next time...