There are three types of people in America today. Those who truly care about themselves, how they want the best for everyone around them, and want to make a positive difference for the world (they make up 2-3%, of America), those who are the exact opposite, wish harm, and make a point to inflict pain (2-3%), and then there is those who are into life for themselves only, are apathetic, not in tune with life, and unless something effects them directly could not care less (they seem to make up 90% of America). Here is an explination, how America is under attack by people who are just to lazy and apathetic to live:
It never ceases to amaze me how there are only three kinds of people in this country. There are people who are striving outwardly for what they perceive as the good of the world, it's people, and a yearning for harmony in all that they choose to do. Then there is a group of people that have the exact opposite viewpoint, with the same zeal and effort, to make the world a place filled with as much chaos and evil as possible. Finally, there is the majority of the world, the "Cafeteria People", or completely apathetic. The people who are not especially engaged in anything, other than themselves, what effects them, and really have not cognitive thought process about anything/anyone and a basic insipidness about life in general.
When Jesus said that the "path to righteousness, is narrow, and it was a lonely road." I do not think that He could have possibly understated that enough. How many people do you know that are actually looking to make a difference, in not only their lives, but also in the lives of ever person around them, every second of every day? In actuality, I do not know that many people at all that are leading a self sacrificing life, expecting nothing else in return and that is a very sad state of affairs. In the year 2006, things around the country seem very dire. Americans continue to spiral out of control, making the opportunity to meet and find people that are "making a difference for others, for themselves, but mainly for God" virtually impossible. Of course, only each person knows what is in his/her heart, but let's just look at one example: I was at the grocery store, right before Thanksgiving, and I counted two people that had a smile on their faces (they happened to be two younger people that were dating) and then I only heard one person (including employees) say the words: "thank you", "hello," "have a nice day," or any other kind of kind words. It is a sad state of affairs, not even counting the huge issues of the day (like Iraq, Iran, poverty, aids, etc....etc...), when the simple and solemn things in life (like common decency, etiquate, and a love for your fellow man) are slowly going by the way side. If those simple things are going the way of the dinosaur, then it is blatantly obvious that "most people" are also not living their lives with a fire to help others, themselves, and mostly utilize and glorify themselves with God's greatest gift, His Love. When people are utilizing this gift from God, then it is 100% obvious thru that person's daily life, choices, and overall attitude. I am not seeing this, and we are around Christmas, the time of season when it should be obvious that people are filled with God's love.
Then there is an obvious flip side to the above paragraph, and that is a group of people who are 100% dedicated to going in the opposite direction of God's Plan, Love, and/or Directions. However, these people are also in an almost M.I.A State also. I do not see a majority of people walking around, looking for trouble, outwardly looking to make people's lives worse and unbearable, and/or just having an overall disdain for people and good in general (although I do see a lot more of these kinds of people, than I do see the "good and Godly people"). However, people must admit that there are human beings making "CONSCIOUS CHOICE" to be the best person/Christian that they can be, living "thru God," for the betterment of society and overall good of mankind (I am going to say 2% that are on that "narrow Godly path," for the sake of this article). If there are 2% of the people that are doing this, then people must come to the conclusion that there is a greater number of people that are doing the "EXACT" opposite. People that are into making others feel pain, want others to have to experience the worst possible things that can be offered in life, and most of all will deliberately lead others astray, simply because they want evil to be the dominating force in the world. There is not any other conclusion, because I know that if I am working my absolute hardest to lead others down a quality path, thru God. There must be another person, my reciprocal ("if you will"), that is doing exactly the opposite of what I have on my agenda. However, I really do not think that this is the problem, or the reason for this article.
The last and most disturbing group of people, that I worry about and I hope that others would worry about as well, are those that do not fit into either one of the above categories. The people who are not living their lives for God and making the world the best place that they can possibly can (on their own, thru their plans with God), the people who are actually the "reciprocal" of those living a Godly lifestyle and are causing mayhem in the world, but the real problem group in the world are the "apathetic people" and the people who are just living for themselves, for the day, and have no interest in anything/anyone except if it fits into their lives. These people are making up the majority of our great country (I personally would say, 85-90%). "Cafeteria religious people," agnostics, atheists, or whatever group and/or nonaffiliated group, has a majority of its people who are just in life for themselves. There is not really any kind of disputing this, if there is an honest look at life in the United States, over the past forty to fifty years. The television, the radio, the Net, politics, religious fervor are all things that have exploded and have morphed to enable the old values and the "simple lifestyles of old" to go by the wayside.
Religious and value based family upbringing, has gone by the wayside in most American homes. In epidemic proportions, things like anorexia, free sex and "hooking up" for teens, absentee parenting, relying on drugs and psychologists more than ever before, and forcing kids to become and deal like adults way before they can psychologically handle adult life (kids are being forced and prodded by parents to be smarter, compete sooner, and are all rushed thru their young lives faster and faster each year that goes by). Gone are the times of sitting at the dinner table as a family, discussing issues and instilling values into our kids, and in its place has sprung up a completely divergent type of separate lifestyles. Words and phrases like "tolerance," "separation of church and state," "apathy," and "self love" are the things that enforce and enable people to be simpletons, people who are easily controlled by events, things, and other people. You do not have to go farther than your local grocery store to see the changes of the "New American Attitude." (Next time you go, just bump your basket into another persons basket, and see what kind of "real attitude/reaction" that you get.) Watching a divide that can be seen anywhere, in any town, or city across this nation, is heartbreaking, However, it is also hurting our country.
Apathy and self love is the easy way out for the majority of American people, and 85-90% of Americans are taking it. Making things like Christmas irrelevant (other than who is getting what, or "keeping up with the Jones'), people "expecting" to get something out of life for nothing thru law suits and frivolous charges, and just a complete apathy toward America the country is rampant. I would rather split the country down the middle, having the people who are 100% on either side of the fence, whether they be for God and a positive way of living for everyone, or the other side and complete Anarchy. Then we could just see who would win the heart and soul of the country, once again. There would then be a day where every person would know where they stand with each individual. There would not have to be a constant blasé attitude about everything, everyone, and about this nation. However, if that was to happen, then everyone would have to not only make a choice, but they would have to have some kind of conviction. Of course this would never happen and it is just "Pie in the Sky Thinking," because Jesus Christ said it best, "the road to righteousness, honor, and salvation is a narrow one, and very few will actually 'CHOOSE' this path."
Saturday, December 9, 2006
Friday, December 8, 2006
MSNBC HAS CHANGED MORE IN 4 YEARS, THEN ANY OTHER NETWORK. CAN YOU SAY, "PARTISAN?"
After watching the cable and network news channels/shows, over the last either years, it pain me to see what a complete network can actually slump to, for ratings. Fox News, CNN, and even the network channels of CBS, ABC, and Fox all have different people, with different points of view. Some have more of a liberal slant, and other have a little bit of a right slant. However, none of the above have actually "changed formats" to fit what they think the American people want, for just plain old ratings, except for MSNBC/NBC.
Start off with the total NBC family and not focus on any of the actual personalities, or shows. NBC is the first network to straight out call the "War in Iraq": A 'CIVIL' WAR, as a declaration. News networks and their reporters are supposed to report the news, give out the overall outlook of the world as it is in context, but are they really supposed to make actual "declarations" of policy?
Then there is David Gregory, the White House Chief Correspondent for MSNBC/NBC. Day in and day out, for the last two years solid, he has been on a crusade to not only bash President Bush and the White House Staff. Of course, the American People, as a whole, are against the war as it stands now, and there is no analyst, pundit, or pole that will say otherwise. However, when David Gregory (who has been in vocal disagreements with VP Cheney, Spokesperson Tony Snow, and even President Bush himself, on numerous occasions) gets the microphone, there is only one thing that you can count on; "The David Gregory Show", staring David Gregory with a host of vile, distorted, and half cocked theories about the war. All of which are used as democratic sound bites, on the national scene, MSNBC, and NBC (the mother station). However, it is Gregory's actions that make him such a partisan, at this point in the game. Speaking over people, not letting the person finish his question(s), and most of all his "get out of his seat and lean in" approach in the White House. There is nothing noble, least of all professional about Gregory, and his agenda is blatant and tacky.
Then, the "Republican Show" of MSNBC, "Scarborough Country" (with Joe Scarborough), which was a very balanced, news conscious, and intelligent show. However, this was four years ago when Scarborough had a firm hold on his ratings, at the beginning of the war, and before Hurricane Katrina, and if you fast forward to the show today, it is a shadow of what it was. Nightly there are pieces like "Hollywierd," where Joe and two guests discuss the odd and crazy things happening in Hollywood (a far cry from political news). Not only is the time slot not in the prime time anymore (on at 5 p.m., and only 4 days a week, along with "Tucker"), but the news coverage is not "prime time material" either. Joe went from being an "average Joe" (as he was touted, in commercials), and has been transformed into an average Joke, every night. There is not any big name people on the show, one can only deduct that MSNBC's political slant, new format, and finally the fact that they are really only pushing "Hardball" now (being it's only true ratings hit) are reasons for the decline in Scarborough's ratings, guests, and overall performance.
Lastly, there is "Hardball with Christ Mathews," a show that was actually up to par with shows like "Meet the Press" and other major political shows. However, as the last two years have shown, Chris Mathews has gone from a fair and well balanced interviewer, with some of the best guests (from each side of the aisle), to a partisan democrat ranting and raving. The proof of this obvious transformation, is on the mother station once again. However, the proof is on Saturday Night Live, not another news show. The fact that a "news anchor" is being spoofed in pop culture, is a great example that the actor may want to take a look at what they spoof is all about? However, this is not what has happened with Mathews, either. Like David Gregory, Mathews has taken this partisan ranting to a whole new level, actually stumbling on it with an interview during the 2004 Presidential Campaign, when he gave the infamous, "Duel Speech." Since that actual mishap, when the guest did not hear what Mathews actually said, and then responded hastily with "I wish we were in the days when two men could just go out and have a duel." Mathews has consistently gone the way of the partisan, punch pulling, satiric character that he has been portrayed on SNL. It isn't only Mathews "being Mathews" that has made the show go downhill though. On "Hardball" there is a constant and badgering theme of how bad the war in Iraq is going, with guests like Ron Reagan, Jr., Joe Trippy, and even the repeating republican guest Pat Buchanon (who is republican, but has been against the war from day one).
MSNBC/NBC had to do something, because Fox News was killing them in the ratings, consistently. However, all the changes that MSNBC/NBC has made throughout the last four years are really transparent. They are actually trying to cater to what they think that "the people want," but who are they really catering too? It is the people on each coast and the media elite. When a whole company can say that they are going to "Change the language of a whole American War in Iraq", by calling it a civil war ONLY, it is obvious that they are not only changing the company line, but that they are changing their slant, looking to change the edge of their programming, and lastly that they are making a genuine effort to make sure that all of their people are in line and with the company's overall delivering. MSNBC/NBC looks like they are trying to capture the overall news ratings that the Fox News Channel has, but what they do not understand is that just agreeing with polls, pundits, and what they feel the "BI-Coastal Communities" want to hear, will not do it. It just makes them the partisan elitists that they really are, behind the scenes, rather than doing their jobs in an honest and balanced way.
Start off with the total NBC family and not focus on any of the actual personalities, or shows. NBC is the first network to straight out call the "War in Iraq": A 'CIVIL' WAR, as a declaration. News networks and their reporters are supposed to report the news, give out the overall outlook of the world as it is in context, but are they really supposed to make actual "declarations" of policy?
Then there is David Gregory, the White House Chief Correspondent for MSNBC/NBC. Day in and day out, for the last two years solid, he has been on a crusade to not only bash President Bush and the White House Staff. Of course, the American People, as a whole, are against the war as it stands now, and there is no analyst, pundit, or pole that will say otherwise. However, when David Gregory (who has been in vocal disagreements with VP Cheney, Spokesperson Tony Snow, and even President Bush himself, on numerous occasions) gets the microphone, there is only one thing that you can count on; "The David Gregory Show", staring David Gregory with a host of vile, distorted, and half cocked theories about the war. All of which are used as democratic sound bites, on the national scene, MSNBC, and NBC (the mother station). However, it is Gregory's actions that make him such a partisan, at this point in the game. Speaking over people, not letting the person finish his question(s), and most of all his "get out of his seat and lean in" approach in the White House. There is nothing noble, least of all professional about Gregory, and his agenda is blatant and tacky.
Then, the "Republican Show" of MSNBC, "Scarborough Country" (with Joe Scarborough), which was a very balanced, news conscious, and intelligent show. However, this was four years ago when Scarborough had a firm hold on his ratings, at the beginning of the war, and before Hurricane Katrina, and if you fast forward to the show today, it is a shadow of what it was. Nightly there are pieces like "Hollywierd," where Joe and two guests discuss the odd and crazy things happening in Hollywood (a far cry from political news). Not only is the time slot not in the prime time anymore (on at 5 p.m., and only 4 days a week, along with "Tucker"), but the news coverage is not "prime time material" either. Joe went from being an "average Joe" (as he was touted, in commercials), and has been transformed into an average Joke, every night. There is not any big name people on the show, one can only deduct that MSNBC's political slant, new format, and finally the fact that they are really only pushing "Hardball" now (being it's only true ratings hit) are reasons for the decline in Scarborough's ratings, guests, and overall performance.
Lastly, there is "Hardball with Christ Mathews," a show that was actually up to par with shows like "Meet the Press" and other major political shows. However, as the last two years have shown, Chris Mathews has gone from a fair and well balanced interviewer, with some of the best guests (from each side of the aisle), to a partisan democrat ranting and raving. The proof of this obvious transformation, is on the mother station once again. However, the proof is on Saturday Night Live, not another news show. The fact that a "news anchor" is being spoofed in pop culture, is a great example that the actor may want to take a look at what they spoof is all about? However, this is not what has happened with Mathews, either. Like David Gregory, Mathews has taken this partisan ranting to a whole new level, actually stumbling on it with an interview during the 2004 Presidential Campaign, when he gave the infamous, "Duel Speech." Since that actual mishap, when the guest did not hear what Mathews actually said, and then responded hastily with "I wish we were in the days when two men could just go out and have a duel." Mathews has consistently gone the way of the partisan, punch pulling, satiric character that he has been portrayed on SNL. It isn't only Mathews "being Mathews" that has made the show go downhill though. On "Hardball" there is a constant and badgering theme of how bad the war in Iraq is going, with guests like Ron Reagan, Jr., Joe Trippy, and even the repeating republican guest Pat Buchanon (who is republican, but has been against the war from day one).
MSNBC/NBC had to do something, because Fox News was killing them in the ratings, consistently. However, all the changes that MSNBC/NBC has made throughout the last four years are really transparent. They are actually trying to cater to what they think that "the people want," but who are they really catering too? It is the people on each coast and the media elite. When a whole company can say that they are going to "Change the language of a whole American War in Iraq", by calling it a civil war ONLY, it is obvious that they are not only changing the company line, but that they are changing their slant, looking to change the edge of their programming, and lastly that they are making a genuine effort to make sure that all of their people are in line and with the company's overall delivering. MSNBC/NBC looks like they are trying to capture the overall news ratings that the Fox News Channel has, but what they do not understand is that just agreeing with polls, pundits, and what they feel the "BI-Coastal Communities" want to hear, will not do it. It just makes them the partisan elitists that they really are, behind the scenes, rather than doing their jobs in an honest and balanced way.
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
WHY IS BARACK OBAMA "THE BELL OF THE BALL," AND WHEN ARE THE POLITICANS GOING TO LEARN?
Jim Webb, new elect-congressman from Virginia (a fully decorated military serviceman, from the Vietnam War), give the snub to President Bush in the White House? President Bush just asked, "How Mr. Webb's son was/is, in Iraq?" Webb's response (in a nutshell), " That is my business, not yours Mr. President."
What is the deal, even when it is completely the same on the other side of the aisle, with Republicans snubbing Democrats? When the top of the people's nationally voted in "servants" can't have civil discourse. The United States of America's publicly appointed servants are always going to play politics, and do what they do. However, there is a difference between being a "politician," and then just being from a different planet, out for yourself, and just being plainly biased for a party (whatever party it may be).
These "blue blooded, hot headed, partisan, ivy league" politicians are either going to learn, or they are going to be out on their preverbal cans. Why is Barrack Obama the "bell of the democratic presidential ball" right now? Simpole, he is a star of the "Oprah Crowd," acts like he was brought up by a set of parents and not a group of jackals (out for blood and all that they can devour), but most of all Obama "seems" like he is a representative of the people and is "one of the people." This is the only thing that is separating Barrack, from people like Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and some of the other Presidential Hopefuls. Another example: Take a look at Heath Shuler, the freshman congressman from North Carolina. Of course, Shuler was a standout quarterback at the University of Tennessee, but why did he really win an election that he was supposed to lose? It is because Shuler was not into the "smearing and mud throwing attacks" in his commercials and overall running, he seemed like a fresh face with a "good 'ol boy" attitude, and yet he was well learned, had an agenda, and did not go off of the deep partisan end.
The democrats in this years election did not receive a "mandate" in their political victory. The difference between the 1994 republican landslide (lead by Newt Gingrich and the far right) win, and what happened in the 2006 election is simple: In 1994, people were tired of the taxes, broken promises, and the overall neglect of the democrats leadership in the house and senate. However, in 2006, the democrats won on the simple fact that the people hate that the US is in Iraq, they hated the corruption (of the Abramoff Scandal, Bob Ney and cohorts), but most of all they just plainly hate President Bush and drunk with power republicans.
If the democrats in the majority do not realize that these are TRULY new times that we are in as a country, as a nation of people, and a completely different world view, then there will be a complete demise of the political system, as the US has known it. It may be the best thing that could happen to the country, because the "Servants of the People" need to be just that and nothing more, servants. America is looking down the barrel of a loaded gun. Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, North Korea, China buying up all of our debt/growing in astronomical proportions, Russia (and China) leaning towards a sealed military state, plus immigration, terrorism and the countless other problems (aids, Rwanda, Dar-Fur, South America being lead by multiple dictators), are all staring the country straight in the face. Are all of these things George W. Bush's fault? NO. Does the country need non-partisan, people thinking outside of the box, and most of all people that are into the political sphere for more than just themselves and their parties? YES! America needs people that are willing to lead, solve, and show all of the Americans that their votes were not cast in vain.
Wednesday, November 8, 2006
"YOU BREAK IT, YOU BUY IT," IS NOW "YOU WON THE ELECTION, YOU FIX IT," FOR DEMOCRATS.
In the final hours of the election, one thing is for sure and that is that the Democrats now have control of the House of Representatives. Nancy Pelosi is sure to be the "Speaker of the House," plus a litany of changes are coming to the "new house," in all of the chairmanships. For all of the posturing, ad bashing, and the rest of the dirty tricks, made and played by both parties, all is now complete and the Democrats have reached out and nabbed the what they wished for. With "Power Republicans" like JD Hayworth falling to his democrat foe, as the incumbent. It is blatantly obvious that the American people have now spoken, and they have spoken for a "change."
However, "change" for the American people that just voted, may be a completely different ball game, then the change that will come from the House (and possibly the Senate). Americans, by majority vote and polling, want: 1. They want an answer and fix to "illegal immigration" and the millions of illegals in the country already. 2. They want a complete and honest set of legislators who will be above corruption, will not be partisan and will work across the aisle to reform the country, and it would be nice for the House and Senate to work more than 100 days a year (and work closer to the 130-150 days, like in days past). 3. The people of the newly elected house (maybe Senate) have to "WORK" with each other, come up with a plan for Iraq, and not start a bunch of back biting with the President, in order to stabilize Iraq.
The Democrats now have their wish, but what have they actually won? Collin Powell said, before the US went into Iraq, "If you break it, then you own it." The democrats are now in a position, from winning the House, and now they are of the mantra "You won it, now you fix it." The whole political season, leading up to this election was based on change, how the republicans have been the party of corruption, and were now unworthy of their offices, because of the three main issues above. It is one thing to run your whole campaign carping and saying that the problems of the whole country, comes down to the party in powers fault. However, now that the party that was in power has been defeated, the people that have seized power must come up with solutions to the country's problems.
Who will be the person in the Democratic majority that will be the voice of not only reason, but also the voice of the people, will there be a group of people in both the republican and democratic party to stand up and cross the aisle and make a difference, or will the Nancy Pelosi's, Dick Durbin's, and the other partisan politicians of the democratic party bang their liberal drum, drag the Bush Administration through countless inquiries and congressional hearing (with possible impeachment's)? Only time will tell on all of these issues, plus the issues that will continually grow and grow (like China's dealings with all of the corrupt African leaders, China building it's army and gobbling up our national debt, Iran and North Korea's nuclear issues, plus terrorism, oil drilling, the constant assault on our nature, plus more and more issues). Democrats have run an effective and winning campaign on "CHANGE." However, the people trusted the democrats, by giving them control of the House, with America. What will the democrats do with that trust, with a republican President, and finally what will the democratic majority do to make a 'Change"?
However, "change" for the American people that just voted, may be a completely different ball game, then the change that will come from the House (and possibly the Senate). Americans, by majority vote and polling, want: 1. They want an answer and fix to "illegal immigration" and the millions of illegals in the country already. 2. They want a complete and honest set of legislators who will be above corruption, will not be partisan and will work across the aisle to reform the country, and it would be nice for the House and Senate to work more than 100 days a year (and work closer to the 130-150 days, like in days past). 3. The people of the newly elected house (maybe Senate) have to "WORK" with each other, come up with a plan for Iraq, and not start a bunch of back biting with the President, in order to stabilize Iraq.
The Democrats now have their wish, but what have they actually won? Collin Powell said, before the US went into Iraq, "If you break it, then you own it." The democrats are now in a position, from winning the House, and now they are of the mantra "You won it, now you fix it." The whole political season, leading up to this election was based on change, how the republicans have been the party of corruption, and were now unworthy of their offices, because of the three main issues above. It is one thing to run your whole campaign carping and saying that the problems of the whole country, comes down to the party in powers fault. However, now that the party that was in power has been defeated, the people that have seized power must come up with solutions to the country's problems.
Who will be the person in the Democratic majority that will be the voice of not only reason, but also the voice of the people, will there be a group of people in both the republican and democratic party to stand up and cross the aisle and make a difference, or will the Nancy Pelosi's, Dick Durbin's, and the other partisan politicians of the democratic party bang their liberal drum, drag the Bush Administration through countless inquiries and congressional hearing (with possible impeachment's)? Only time will tell on all of these issues, plus the issues that will continually grow and grow (like China's dealings with all of the corrupt African leaders, China building it's army and gobbling up our national debt, Iran and North Korea's nuclear issues, plus terrorism, oil drilling, the constant assault on our nature, plus more and more issues). Democrats have run an effective and winning campaign on "CHANGE." However, the people trusted the democrats, by giving them control of the House, with America. What will the democrats do with that trust, with a republican President, and finally what will the democratic majority do to make a 'Change"?
APATHY IN THE "DEMOCRACY MACHINE" IS WHAT SOME ARE HOPING FOR, IN THESE ELECTIONS TUESDAY
Do people really understand how much is at stake this coming Tuesday, with the elections that are at hand? Looking back on what has been sacrificed, what is being sacrificed, and what will be sacrifices just for the opportunity for people to actually get the "RIGHT" to vote, and it is hard to look at the apathy at the actual process. Listening and reading what the pundits, analysts, what comes in the mail, media, and the Internet blogs are all saying, just sends chills down the spine.
Over the last three days, all of the candidates in Missouri, have ratcheted up the pressing of the people. In the public post offices, after office hours, the lobby is littered with the droppings of candidates direct mailings and the amendment (like the Amendment 2, for stem cell research) mailings. As the trash cans are overflowing, with what most people consider "Junk Mail," only one word comes to mind. Apathy.
There is a base that will vote for a liberal/democrat, whomever they are. There is also the opposite, party line voter, for the conservative/republican. However, there are ten to thirty percent of the overall people, who are left to decide whether to vote, or not to vote. Those people who are left in the fray of the commercials, direct phone calls and mailings, and the overall spin machine of both the republicans and democrats. It does not matter what you are seeing and reading, wherever a voter may gaze. All of the things that are presented "are" from a certain perspective, slant, and for a candidate. This is where most of these "independent voters" are left with a definite set of decisions: 1. They can see all of the ads, mailings, and propaganda, from both sides and make some kind of decision based on that. 2. They can actually look at all of the facts, do some research, and become an informed voter, placing their ballot with whom they believe deserves it. 3. They can become completely apathetic, fed up with the process, and just turn their backs on the whole process, not giving a second thought to who will win, what will come out of it, and the future of their country (plus, the country of their families, and future family).
Apathy can go a long way, and with the majority of people (23% of the people voted that the Congress was not doing a good enough job, George Bush has a 43-48% approval rating 'depending on which poll you look at, or who you listen to', and finally the Senate has not done anything about the issues of "illegal immigration, having a plan for Iraq, and other heavy handed issues"). With the problems of the current administration and the house, as a whole, will people actually turn their backs on the voting rights that they have been given? If they do choose to take the "easy way," throw their hands up and just say "I give up," then do not vote at all. What does that say about the people in our country? What do the outside countries, both friends and foes of the United States, think about this kind of thinking? Finally, why did all of the leaders, the "founding fathers," the men and soldiers who have given their blood and lives, actually fight for "ALL AMERICANS" to vote, if 10-30% of them will not even cast a vote?
Apathy is a tool that is used. Campaign people are trying to win the election for their candidates by inundating the American people with a flood of head bashing ads, candidates family's and choices being drug thru the mud, and dirty politics that are being thrust at the American people at a pace that has never been seen before. These tactics beg to be looked at. Why would the actual candidates and their machines use "Hitler ads," Michael J. Fox stem cell ads (freely paid for not by the people, but by a "ONE FAMILY," who has spent $26 million dollars, out of the total $32-34 million on the stem cell issue alone), and constant "race card" commercials from both parties? The answer is simple. If the people that are in the 10-30% of Independent voters are left with their heads spinning, a bad taste in their mouths about politics in general (especially when people do not like to talk religion and politics, as a whole anyway), and they are confused with all of the false information, character bashing, and anything else that can be calculated into the formulas of these candidates they will be more apt to vote for whomever they are least disgusted by. Apathy and disgust are the tools of both the Democratic and the Republican parties, mixed with a last four day push of "clean phone calls," polling and mass, direct mailing (perfected by the Republican party, in the mid to late 90's), and "micro-manipulation of actual congressional and senate districts."
Personally, I am going to vote my mind and conscious. However, I know that I have received seven pieces of mail from each Senator (here in Missouri), six pieces of mail from my republican congressional district candidate (who I actually went to high school with), and finally I have had three phone calls in the last 36 hours (over Thursday thru Friday) for polling. I can only pray that people look at the candidates without the distorted lens, without the scandal and overall disdain shown between the candidates, and most of all I hope that they do get out and vote. Apathy toward a democratic voting system is doing nothing, but kicking every person who came before us to lead, who spilled their blood on far away shores, and most of all it is spitting right in the face of the statue of liberty and all of what America stands for. VOTE ON TUESDAY. It only hurts our country, and the country's future generations.
Peace, DMAN
Over the last three days, all of the candidates in Missouri, have ratcheted up the pressing of the people. In the public post offices, after office hours, the lobby is littered with the droppings of candidates direct mailings and the amendment (like the Amendment 2, for stem cell research) mailings. As the trash cans are overflowing, with what most people consider "Junk Mail," only one word comes to mind. Apathy.
There is a base that will vote for a liberal/democrat, whomever they are. There is also the opposite, party line voter, for the conservative/republican. However, there are ten to thirty percent of the overall people, who are left to decide whether to vote, or not to vote. Those people who are left in the fray of the commercials, direct phone calls and mailings, and the overall spin machine of both the republicans and democrats. It does not matter what you are seeing and reading, wherever a voter may gaze. All of the things that are presented "are" from a certain perspective, slant, and for a candidate. This is where most of these "independent voters" are left with a definite set of decisions: 1. They can see all of the ads, mailings, and propaganda, from both sides and make some kind of decision based on that. 2. They can actually look at all of the facts, do some research, and become an informed voter, placing their ballot with whom they believe deserves it. 3. They can become completely apathetic, fed up with the process, and just turn their backs on the whole process, not giving a second thought to who will win, what will come out of it, and the future of their country (plus, the country of their families, and future family).
Apathy can go a long way, and with the majority of people (23% of the people voted that the Congress was not doing a good enough job, George Bush has a 43-48% approval rating 'depending on which poll you look at, or who you listen to', and finally the Senate has not done anything about the issues of "illegal immigration, having a plan for Iraq, and other heavy handed issues"). With the problems of the current administration and the house, as a whole, will people actually turn their backs on the voting rights that they have been given? If they do choose to take the "easy way," throw their hands up and just say "I give up," then do not vote at all. What does that say about the people in our country? What do the outside countries, both friends and foes of the United States, think about this kind of thinking? Finally, why did all of the leaders, the "founding fathers," the men and soldiers who have given their blood and lives, actually fight for "ALL AMERICANS" to vote, if 10-30% of them will not even cast a vote?
Apathy is a tool that is used. Campaign people are trying to win the election for their candidates by inundating the American people with a flood of head bashing ads, candidates family's and choices being drug thru the mud, and dirty politics that are being thrust at the American people at a pace that has never been seen before. These tactics beg to be looked at. Why would the actual candidates and their machines use "Hitler ads," Michael J. Fox stem cell ads (freely paid for not by the people, but by a "ONE FAMILY," who has spent $26 million dollars, out of the total $32-34 million on the stem cell issue alone), and constant "race card" commercials from both parties? The answer is simple. If the people that are in the 10-30% of Independent voters are left with their heads spinning, a bad taste in their mouths about politics in general (especially when people do not like to talk religion and politics, as a whole anyway), and they are confused with all of the false information, character bashing, and anything else that can be calculated into the formulas of these candidates they will be more apt to vote for whomever they are least disgusted by. Apathy and disgust are the tools of both the Democratic and the Republican parties, mixed with a last four day push of "clean phone calls," polling and mass, direct mailing (perfected by the Republican party, in the mid to late 90's), and "micro-manipulation of actual congressional and senate districts."
Personally, I am going to vote my mind and conscious. However, I know that I have received seven pieces of mail from each Senator (here in Missouri), six pieces of mail from my republican congressional district candidate (who I actually went to high school with), and finally I have had three phone calls in the last 36 hours (over Thursday thru Friday) for polling. I can only pray that people look at the candidates without the distorted lens, without the scandal and overall disdain shown between the candidates, and most of all I hope that they do get out and vote. Apathy toward a democratic voting system is doing nothing, but kicking every person who came before us to lead, who spilled their blood on far away shores, and most of all it is spitting right in the face of the statue of liberty and all of what America stands for. VOTE ON TUESDAY. It only hurts our country, and the country's future generations.
Peace, DMAN
The Pyramid Scheme of American Politics
People today don't have to be "BI-coastal" to know the democratic process is supposed to be about voting for the candidate based on: fact, truth, logic, and personal belief/ethics. However, the United States has a political system built ON the people, not built FOR the people. America's "Pyramid Scheme of Politics," in the place of what our forefather's built, is a corrupt and multifaceted machine, that does not slow down for the weak and faint of heart. There is virtually nothing left in the "Constitutional Model." However, in its place is a mixed drink of power, elitist slant, unethical choices, and money hungry attitudes. Then the middle class is expected to just drink it down, with a scandal chaser.
The pyramid is a complicated blend of the candidate and the media elite. The candidate, or delegate, whether running for power, the position, or to "represent the American people as a whole" (republican, or democrat), is supposed to be a complete representative of the people who elected him/her. America has to select a group of two to three people, to vote for in each position of power; this year, (either a congressman/woman, senator, and/or a group of amendments (depending on the state). To "cover" the election, there is the mainstream media elite. Whether to listen and/or watch, that includes ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, all of the cable media outlets, plus the whole print press and Internet. However, are the people in the "Fly Over States," (the people not living in a coastal state/city referred to by the elite) being served, taken care of, or even just being listened to at all? These elected representatives and media personalities are not anything without the votes that the people give them, the stories, pundits, analysts, and the others that are giving their opinions on the candidates. This makes a giant pyramid scheme, all using the political voting process. The candidates get into the offices of their running, and the television personalities, pundits, and people with them get all of the ratings and money, they crave. Who are the people that are really leading America into the future?
Take a look at the eduction of the people that are to be the "servants of the people," acting on the behest of the "majority." Of course as a country, it needs some of the most intelligent people, in its most important positions at all levels. However, there is a glaring contradiction between having the most intelligent, best, and brightest, or having the choices the people have now. Almost 95% of the "election candidates," media, pundits, and analysts are from Ivy League/Top 10 schools, have served at the top of the military for a variety of years, or else they are "the legacy" of another (in the respective field, whether a political candidate, like "the Kennedy's," or "Mike & Ron Reagan" being in the Media), in their family. This does not have anything remotely in common with "mainstream Americans." These "vultures of the political culture" (Chris Mathews, Ron Reagan, Jr., Maurine Dowd, Tim Russert, Paul Crugman, Pat Caddell, James Carville, Mary Madeline, Kate Griffin, Steve McMahon, and countless others all feeding off of the teat of the middle and lower middle class) in a place of employment for years (like tenured professors, or judges), doing their work in the elite coastal areas (spending winters in the Bahamas and summers in the Hamptons). While they are completely shut out from the rest of the ideas, ethics, and overall pulse of the remaining part of the country. They are bound to have some kind of bias, slant to their motives, reporting, or overall thought process, because there is not any checks and balances in thier lives, or work. When people cease to seek out new ideas, blend and mix with different people, and only stay with their own kind; they are bound to become fixated on jaded flat, non-inventive ideas.
America can look at the candidates, the analysts, pundits, and the television personalities, all in the same light. Look at a simple example, between the lower 98% of the people in America (the people that make less than $100,000 a year, and an issue that effects everyone), and the people that are supposed to "serve them," report in the best interest of them (giving them the truth), and give guests who are also doing the same. This means that every candidate that runs for an office is automatically not in the same tax bracket, as the people that he/she is going to serve. The reporters and all of the media people that are covering the elections and candidates are also out of the 98% majority of Americans. Even the analysts, pundits, and the wheel greasers of the media are not directly representative of the people, that they so frequently speak of. There are not any people the reporters are talking to, being their "sources," being a prognosticator, or hamming it up to talk about, that are living on the money 98% of the country is living on. This is not even counting the "Rupert Murdock Machine," or the media conglomerates that are in our country. Even "Free Speech TV" and "Link TV," are supposed to be the beacons of light in a murky media blitz. They are slanted so far to the left (with anchors like Amy Goodman and guests), funded by under the table machines (Soros and Co.), that no actual truth can come out of them, as well.
These are the people that are actually running the country, but do they actually see the countries values? Do they report and stand (without any slant at all) on an issue like gay marriage, which shows that over 80% of Americans do not want to gay marriage (in every state, that has had a vote, they have buried that amendment, by vote). This is just one issue, but it is so blatant that it cannot be ignored. Whether an independent, libertarian, liberal/conservative, democrat/republican, or elephant/donkey it does not matter what party these candidates are coming from, who is reporting on them, and who are the people on the shows giving their "opinions" on a television screen, magazine, or in a newspaper. It is all coming from some kind of an angle, been bought, or has some asterisks, by the topic and/or candidate.
America needs change. However, it does not need to change parties. What America needs to change, when it comes to its delegates, reporters, television hosts, analysts, and/or anyone else involved with "The Pyramid Scheme of American Politics," is to show up and vote. Showing that honesty, truth, and justice need to come before anything else. They need to come before: the money that can be made, the corruption that environment and power causes, over getting re-elected, and must come before making decisions based on the minority, over the majority of Americans. The country needs truth. The truth is black and white, not negotiable, and it will never be tarnished. However, the thing about the truth is; it has to be chosen, it will never be handed over, will only happen if someone leads, and that the truth will change things.
Americans must vote with their heads, and not their hearts. Voting for Truth, not for partisanship.
The pyramid is a complicated blend of the candidate and the media elite. The candidate, or delegate, whether running for power, the position, or to "represent the American people as a whole" (republican, or democrat), is supposed to be a complete representative of the people who elected him/her. America has to select a group of two to three people, to vote for in each position of power; this year, (either a congressman/woman, senator, and/or a group of amendments (depending on the state). To "cover" the election, there is the mainstream media elite. Whether to listen and/or watch, that includes ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, all of the cable media outlets, plus the whole print press and Internet. However, are the people in the "Fly Over States," (the people not living in a coastal state/city referred to by the elite) being served, taken care of, or even just being listened to at all? These elected representatives and media personalities are not anything without the votes that the people give them, the stories, pundits, analysts, and the others that are giving their opinions on the candidates. This makes a giant pyramid scheme, all using the political voting process. The candidates get into the offices of their running, and the television personalities, pundits, and people with them get all of the ratings and money, they crave. Who are the people that are really leading America into the future?
Take a look at the eduction of the people that are to be the "servants of the people," acting on the behest of the "majority." Of course as a country, it needs some of the most intelligent people, in its most important positions at all levels. However, there is a glaring contradiction between having the most intelligent, best, and brightest, or having the choices the people have now. Almost 95% of the "election candidates," media, pundits, and analysts are from Ivy League/Top 10 schools, have served at the top of the military for a variety of years, or else they are "the legacy" of another (in the respective field, whether a political candidate, like "the Kennedy's," or "Mike & Ron Reagan" being in the Media), in their family. This does not have anything remotely in common with "mainstream Americans." These "vultures of the political culture" (Chris Mathews, Ron Reagan, Jr., Maurine Dowd, Tim Russert, Paul Crugman, Pat Caddell, James Carville, Mary Madeline, Kate Griffin, Steve McMahon, and countless others all feeding off of the teat of the middle and lower middle class) in a place of employment for years (like tenured professors, or judges), doing their work in the elite coastal areas (spending winters in the Bahamas and summers in the Hamptons). While they are completely shut out from the rest of the ideas, ethics, and overall pulse of the remaining part of the country. They are bound to have some kind of bias, slant to their motives, reporting, or overall thought process, because there is not any checks and balances in thier lives, or work. When people cease to seek out new ideas, blend and mix with different people, and only stay with their own kind; they are bound to become fixated on jaded flat, non-inventive ideas.
America can look at the candidates, the analysts, pundits, and the television personalities, all in the same light. Look at a simple example, between the lower 98% of the people in America (the people that make less than $100,000 a year, and an issue that effects everyone), and the people that are supposed to "serve them," report in the best interest of them (giving them the truth), and give guests who are also doing the same. This means that every candidate that runs for an office is automatically not in the same tax bracket, as the people that he/she is going to serve. The reporters and all of the media people that are covering the elections and candidates are also out of the 98% majority of Americans. Even the analysts, pundits, and the wheel greasers of the media are not directly representative of the people, that they so frequently speak of. There are not any people the reporters are talking to, being their "sources," being a prognosticator, or hamming it up to talk about, that are living on the money 98% of the country is living on. This is not even counting the "Rupert Murdock Machine," or the media conglomerates that are in our country. Even "Free Speech TV" and "Link TV," are supposed to be the beacons of light in a murky media blitz. They are slanted so far to the left (with anchors like Amy Goodman and guests), funded by under the table machines (Soros and Co.), that no actual truth can come out of them, as well.
These are the people that are actually running the country, but do they actually see the countries values? Do they report and stand (without any slant at all) on an issue like gay marriage, which shows that over 80% of Americans do not want to gay marriage (in every state, that has had a vote, they have buried that amendment, by vote). This is just one issue, but it is so blatant that it cannot be ignored. Whether an independent, libertarian, liberal/conservative, democrat/republican, or elephant/donkey it does not matter what party these candidates are coming from, who is reporting on them, and who are the people on the shows giving their "opinions" on a television screen, magazine, or in a newspaper. It is all coming from some kind of an angle, been bought, or has some asterisks, by the topic and/or candidate.
America needs change. However, it does not need to change parties. What America needs to change, when it comes to its delegates, reporters, television hosts, analysts, and/or anyone else involved with "The Pyramid Scheme of American Politics," is to show up and vote. Showing that honesty, truth, and justice need to come before anything else. They need to come before: the money that can be made, the corruption that environment and power causes, over getting re-elected, and must come before making decisions based on the minority, over the majority of Americans. The country needs truth. The truth is black and white, not negotiable, and it will never be tarnished. However, the thing about the truth is; it has to be chosen, it will never be handed over, will only happen if someone leads, and that the truth will change things.
Americans must vote with their heads, and not their hearts. Voting for Truth, not for partisanship.
"THE SHOW ME STATE" NOW "THE BELL WHETHER STATE" WITH A WEEK LEFT IN THE '06 MID-TERMS
Missouri, a state that is usually forgotten by the media, "coastal elitists," and even the Weather Channel (most days) is finding out that its population is not the red headed stepchildren of the United States, at least for this 2006 election season. The senate race is at a fever pitch, with just one week before the people of Missouri go to the polls. However, Missouri, the "Show Me State," is now being called the "Bell Weather State." Analysts, Pundits, the media, and sitting politicians are saying, "Whichever way Missouri voters go, that will be the way the election for the congress and possibly the senate may go, as well."
Missourians already know their state is split into two halves, has a small group of spread out cities, plus a lot of "in between space". There is the St. Louis side, where soft drinks are called soda, the sports people cheer for their World Series Champs (the St. Louis Cardinals), and the general population is more on the "moderate to liberal" side of the voting ticket. Also, in the new crime report, for the cities in the United States, St. Lous is the most dangerous city (most crime filled city) in all of America. Although, there is two seperate acting sides of the state, the state is still filled with very similar people overall. On the Kansas City side of the state, there are subtle differences from the brothers and sisters down I-70: calling the soft drinks "pop" (instead of soda, or soda pop), the sports fans are used to driving down "George Brett Interstate" (a section of I-70 named after the Hall of Fame, K. C. Royals third baseman) and cheering for the Royals and Chiefs, and the voters are not 100% sold on people like Rev. Emanuel Clever, Claire McCaskill, and/or other democrats now, or from the past. However, Kansas City people are also not the "Country Bumpkins" they are portrayed as, with a probable 50-50 split in voting record, compared to the St. Louis people.
The problem for both Republicans and Democrats, in shoring up the vote for their respective parties, is that there is more to Missouri then just St. Louis and Kansas City. Splitting the state, almost down the middle is a group of three cities: Springfield, Columbia, and St. Joseph, Missouri. All three of these cities are smaller than both Kansas City and St. Louis, but they all three have major colleges right in the middle (Springfield has SMSU, Columbia has the University of Missouri, and Northwest Missouri State and William Jewel are in neighboring towns of St. Joseph, Missouri). These three cities are unique, because they all three have the moderate to progressive type younger voters, who attend the universities. However, there is a roll call of people in these cities alone that have grown up in a smaller town and decided that the bigger cities (K. C. and/or St. Louis) was not for them. These three cities, all with populations of around 80-150,000 people, are mixed with both republicans and democrats. A younger voting core, with college students (who notoriously do not vote at all). A voting range of people who are between 24 to 36, who have moved to a city where they will not have to give up the city things, raise a family, have crime and taxes cut, but are still not in a "Big City." Lastly, these three cities have an older range of voters, from 37 and up. These voters have families and are usually the "Party Line" voters, set in their ways. They can be polled, are targeted by commercials and calls, and will probably not be swayed before election day comes. These three "middle population cities" contain three seperate categories of people, age groups, and most importantly for the politicians, voters.
Once St. Louis, Kansas City, St. Joseph's, Columbia, and Springfield are taken out of the picture, the voting machine has a completely different dynamic. Some are farmers, small businessmen, families, and the "typical John Cougar, Ford truck driving" small town people. However, politicians, pundits, analysts, news people, and the overall "media elite" are not in tune to how intelligent the people of "Fly Over Country" can be. Just because these people are living in towns and cities of 4500 people, or less, does not mean that they do not care about their taxes, medical issues, the war in Iraq, the border and illegal imagration, or our troops. The people of Missouri and "Fly Over Country" have a better pulse on what America actually wants and needs, right now, then the majority of the people that are on the television, writing for the New York Times, or doing the polls for the election. The people outside of the pollsters grasp and the rebublican/democrat phone calls for support, money, and/or surveying, are the ones that will be the "Swing Vote" in this election in Missouri (Tennessee, Virginia, etc...) The people outside the 5-6 bigger cities in Missouri are the people that will decide whether the Democrat Claire McCaskill, or the Republican Jim Talent will be the next Missouri State Senator.
What the analysts, pundits, and all of the media people have not taken into account that roughly thirty percent of the people in Missouri are not living in a "city." They are the people in a swing vote position, not being polled, and are the people that will be able to vote outside the "margin of error." These people are not the "Bubba's" that the media elite plays them out to be. If they were of the "Bubba Mentallity" (complacent, stupid, or just don't "understand the times"), then all of the "experts," would know exactly how to "Poll Out" this election in Missouri (and Tennessee). However, the experts, the media elite blowhards, and the people of the Andy Rooney BI-coastal snob mentality are just spewing out whatever comes to mind.
When the winds of change blow, the so-called experts are the first people to change their views and do the "Kerry Flip Flop." This is why none of the Keith Olbermans', Brain Williams', Dick Morris' and/or the media/political machine have any idea about the Missouri Senate Election. When everyone is talking about Missouri "Showing the Way," to who will win the House and/or the Senate, there are very few people have any clue. They would rather listen to their own opinions, talk and blast away with other people of like minded sentiment, and just keep on cashing those big checks, then to actually do some work, report some facts, and actually feel America's pulse just once.
Missourians already know their state is split into two halves, has a small group of spread out cities, plus a lot of "in between space". There is the St. Louis side, where soft drinks are called soda, the sports people cheer for their World Series Champs (the St. Louis Cardinals), and the general population is more on the "moderate to liberal" side of the voting ticket. Also, in the new crime report, for the cities in the United States, St. Lous is the most dangerous city (most crime filled city) in all of America. Although, there is two seperate acting sides of the state, the state is still filled with very similar people overall. On the Kansas City side of the state, there are subtle differences from the brothers and sisters down I-70: calling the soft drinks "pop" (instead of soda, or soda pop), the sports fans are used to driving down "George Brett Interstate" (a section of I-70 named after the Hall of Fame, K. C. Royals third baseman) and cheering for the Royals and Chiefs, and the voters are not 100% sold on people like Rev. Emanuel Clever, Claire McCaskill, and/or other democrats now, or from the past. However, Kansas City people are also not the "Country Bumpkins" they are portrayed as, with a probable 50-50 split in voting record, compared to the St. Louis people.
The problem for both Republicans and Democrats, in shoring up the vote for their respective parties, is that there is more to Missouri then just St. Louis and Kansas City. Splitting the state, almost down the middle is a group of three cities: Springfield, Columbia, and St. Joseph, Missouri. All three of these cities are smaller than both Kansas City and St. Louis, but they all three have major colleges right in the middle (Springfield has SMSU, Columbia has the University of Missouri, and Northwest Missouri State and William Jewel are in neighboring towns of St. Joseph, Missouri). These three cities are unique, because they all three have the moderate to progressive type younger voters, who attend the universities. However, there is a roll call of people in these cities alone that have grown up in a smaller town and decided that the bigger cities (K. C. and/or St. Louis) was not for them. These three cities, all with populations of around 80-150,000 people, are mixed with both republicans and democrats. A younger voting core, with college students (who notoriously do not vote at all). A voting range of people who are between 24 to 36, who have moved to a city where they will not have to give up the city things, raise a family, have crime and taxes cut, but are still not in a "Big City." Lastly, these three cities have an older range of voters, from 37 and up. These voters have families and are usually the "Party Line" voters, set in their ways. They can be polled, are targeted by commercials and calls, and will probably not be swayed before election day comes. These three "middle population cities" contain three seperate categories of people, age groups, and most importantly for the politicians, voters.
Once St. Louis, Kansas City, St. Joseph's, Columbia, and Springfield are taken out of the picture, the voting machine has a completely different dynamic. Some are farmers, small businessmen, families, and the "typical John Cougar, Ford truck driving" small town people. However, politicians, pundits, analysts, news people, and the overall "media elite" are not in tune to how intelligent the people of "Fly Over Country" can be. Just because these people are living in towns and cities of 4500 people, or less, does not mean that they do not care about their taxes, medical issues, the war in Iraq, the border and illegal imagration, or our troops. The people of Missouri and "Fly Over Country" have a better pulse on what America actually wants and needs, right now, then the majority of the people that are on the television, writing for the New York Times, or doing the polls for the election. The people outside of the pollsters grasp and the rebublican/democrat phone calls for support, money, and/or surveying, are the ones that will be the "Swing Vote" in this election in Missouri (Tennessee, Virginia, etc...) The people outside the 5-6 bigger cities in Missouri are the people that will decide whether the Democrat Claire McCaskill, or the Republican Jim Talent will be the next Missouri State Senator.
What the analysts, pundits, and all of the media people have not taken into account that roughly thirty percent of the people in Missouri are not living in a "city." They are the people in a swing vote position, not being polled, and are the people that will be able to vote outside the "margin of error." These people are not the "Bubba's" that the media elite plays them out to be. If they were of the "Bubba Mentallity" (complacent, stupid, or just don't "understand the times"), then all of the "experts," would know exactly how to "Poll Out" this election in Missouri (and Tennessee). However, the experts, the media elite blowhards, and the people of the Andy Rooney BI-coastal snob mentality are just spewing out whatever comes to mind.
When the winds of change blow, the so-called experts are the first people to change their views and do the "Kerry Flip Flop." This is why none of the Keith Olbermans', Brain Williams', Dick Morris' and/or the media/political machine have any idea about the Missouri Senate Election. When everyone is talking about Missouri "Showing the Way," to who will win the House and/or the Senate, there are very few people have any clue. They would rather listen to their own opinions, talk and blast away with other people of like minded sentiment, and just keep on cashing those big checks, then to actually do some work, report some facts, and actually feel America's pulse just once.
Who Can The US Believe, In This Time of Change and Corruption?
Mark Foley, North Korea's Nuclear Testing, Senate and House Hearings coming within a month, and yet you almost have to be a rocket scientist in order to figure out who is telling the trust, who is looking out for the people, and/or who is just full of it and out for themselves. In a time when most households have to have two incomes, and are not in a position to sit and watch 2-4 hours of news, search the Web, or do what it takes to be critically informed, what can be done to make an informed choice? Luckily, and I use that term loosely, I am a disabled man and I have the time to look at the news for 4-6 hours a day, do some research and try to make an educated decision on things that are in the world today. You know what I have found out? Almost nothing. Even now, with me writing what I am writing to whomever is reading this, I am writing from a point of view. It is sad, and I am trying to tell the absolute truth, as I know it, but how much do I know? How do you know that you can trust me? Lastly, how do you know that where I got my information from was actually correct? You do not know, and that is bad too. However, I will give whomever is reading this, my best shot, about how the wool is being pulled over our eyes daily, and you can take it from their. Then I won't be selling my points, but I will be selling you what I saw.Starting off, I have seen the news shows (Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, CSPAN, ABC, NBC, CBS, & FREE SPEECH TV), over the last three to five days. I have watched them for about 4-6 hours of programming (like the O'Rielly Factor "Fox News", Democracy Now "FSTV", Hardball w/Chris Mathews "MSNBC", etc...etc...), plus the evening news from all of the major news channels. This is what I have found out. There are basically two to four major news articles and/or interests that are fueling the television and the Internet, when it comes to politics. They are: the Mark Foley "Page Scandal" (where he made lewd comments, emails, and IM's to 16-21 year old Pages/Helpers to his campaign/office in Washington), The War (in Iraq & Afghanistan), the North Korea Nuclear Test and what they have said about it since, and the overall one month until the election talks (for the House of Representatives and the Senate). With these four topics, and these four topics only, being the "News" for the television, Internet, and the printed press, they have knocked off the topics of the Bob Woodward Book (talking about President Bush's last three years, the war in Iraq, and what a screw up his administration is), the Bill O'Rielly talk about the "Secular progressive War Vs. The Traditionalists (spoken in his #1 best seller book, "Culture Warrior"), and finally these four stories have even made Iran, Venezuela, and their leaders take a back seat.So, if you were to watch the different cable news and world news channels, what would you here and where would the slant lie, in their coverage? Over the last two days (Monday & Tuesday--Oct. 9th & 10th), which basically sets the tone for the week in the News (barring any new "break out News", that would bump one of these stories), and I have researched especially because of the 30 day mark of the campaigns, to see where each of the television stations allegiances lie. They have broken down just like this. None are "Fair and Balanced", some are better than others, while then again some are just downright spewing hatred, biased lies, and the truth wrapped in a pretty blanket of deceit.To start off with Fox News Shows & one on CNN "Lou Dobbs Tonight" (from Bill O'Rielly, Hannity & Colmes, Brit Hume, and even "Your World with Neil Cavuto" at 4 p.m.), almost every single show started off with the North Korea Nuclear Test story. They had between five to twenty minutes of the story, people "debating/talking" about it, and then prognosticate what it would have to do with the American people. Then, there was a complete switch of gears to where the "Liberals and/or Democrats" were standing, speaking, and sound biting on the Mark Foley Scandal. They usually had two different guests on to talk about the scandal and were not completely off, with the coverage, but it was all geared towards "What is more important? Mark Foley a "no sex with minors story", or the fact that North Korea is testing nuclear material and the democrats are focusing on something different. Finally, they usually ended up with the Iraq story, grifting over the statistics, not showing a whole lot of any blood shed, and then tying it all in with North Korea, Iran, Hugo Chavez, and how easily it would be for a terrorist to get their hands on the nuclear material. Almost every show was set up this way, which is slanted away from a bad republican outcome, and how the Democrats are weak on defense and protecting our country (some going as far, as to say that some Liberals wanted the U.S. to fail across the world).The next group of the media that was a completely different side of things, came from MSNBC, ABC, NBC, & part of CNN. Those channels had an almost the exact opposite parade of "newsworthy items". They almost all (Anderson Cooper 360, Brian Williams, Scarborough Country, Jon Stewart, one of the worst, Kieth Olberman, and the list goes on) started with a five to twenty minute talk about the Mark Foley Case, with special guests, like prosecutors, old Clinton Aids, and Democratic pundits. For the full time, the whole gist of the interviews was that "Republicans/Conservatives" were all in the Mark Foley case, in a cover up. Continuing on, saying that this would hurt and cause Republican voters to either stay home, or change their votes altogether. After the Foley coverage, there was usually a switch to the Kim Jong Il, North Korean Nuclear test. However, the coverage of the nuclear test was completely different than the Fox News and Fox Channel coverage. They focused on how President Bush was at fault for not having "Bi-lateral talks" with North Korea. Also, how if the United States would have been lead, by the republican party (House and Senate), then there would have been a lot of different things coming out of North Korea. The difference in the Nuclear coverage, was slanted about 50% more towards the Democratic side, then the Fox News was towards the Republican side. There was almost a fierceness in the reporting, in the guests, and the debating against the White House, the President, and the overall Republican Party, where it lacked this against the Democratic party on Fox (on Fox, it was more like they were "sneaking their coverage past you, rather than blaming and having an "in your face" type attitude).Finally there was the Link TV, BBC, and the Free Speech TV coverage. Although they do not have the "regular" programming that they bigger networks has, there are a handful of shows that appear regularly and are not documentaries. Democracy Now, Mosaic (a handful of reports of newscasts, that lasts thirty minutes), from around the middle east "on Link & FSTV), and a handful of others like BBC News are completely brutal, in almost a socialist gone wrong experiment. From guests like Solmon Rushde, Ted Turner, and countless others that are way left of center in their political beliefs (and they do not make any bones about their beliefs), the hatred of the Bush White House, U.S. foreign policy, and both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are more than prevalent in their programming and guests. There is rarely a word uttered, in a good, or even in a marginal way toward any of these topics. They do not have any format, like the other television stations and/or shows do, on how they lead off of their coverage. They just jumped right in, on bashing the United States, the President, any of our allies, and anything that is not completely slanted, if not laid completely down, toward the left and leftist ideals. There is really nothing else to say about this set of channels other than they lean toward Canadian Socialism, Pro-Abortion, no war/pure peace, and stand for just about anything that America is against, and vice versa. Amy Goodman, the host of "Democracy Now", is a feminist on the war path. Who crushes anyone that is in her way, talks over hosts that have her on their shows (like Christ Mathews, on Hardball), and on "Democracy Now" bellows her own beliefs and clouded judgments for all to here. However, she is the first person to ask for money, on their frequent pledge drives, powered by the Internet and far left supporters. Out of all of the things I have described above, the research that I have done, and the "lens" that I am looking through, when I do watch these shows, channels, and speakers (like I do most nights, to keep a good base on what is coming into my mind, mixed with the books and Net articles I read), I can only urge you to do what only one channel urges you to do. The Fox News Channel says, and I will agree with this principle: Do not believe me, look, read, and research for yourself. The times that we all live in are tough, and they require educated decisions. A constant influx of problems, information, and subjects are being pushed at you in a variety of different ways. All of those ways are steered towards you looking at a given point, subject, and/or article from the speaker's point of view. At this moment, if you are reading this, you have read something that is factual. It is factual through what I believe in and think. However, it is up to you now, to go and investigate and make your own decisions, on what I just typed, what the TV just said, and whatever you read, hear, or listen to. If not, then you are just a puppet on the strings of a media, political, and financial master that has no options, but what they give you.
How Can A Journeyman MLB Pitcher, Bring A Grown Man To Tears?
A bright and clear sunny day and the football games are a plenty, but all of a sudden something comes across the bottom of my television screen. I can read it, Jason Grimsley's non-redacted statement to authorities, naming 6 more players in the steroid scandal: Roger Clemens, Andy Pettite, Miguel Tejada, Gibbons, Brian Roberts, and David Segui. However, all I hear is James Earl Jones' voice, from the baseball movie classic "Field of Dreams" saying, "Baseball Ray, it is the one constant throughout the years........." Earl Jones' going thru a litany of reasons and things why baseball has made it thru the years. Some of the things baseball has survived for over 120+ years are a World Series gambling scandal (in 1919, the Black Sox Scandal), free agency (with Curt Flood), and a strike by the owners and players that altogether denied the fans of a third of a full season, the playoffs and the World Series. However, I do not know if baseball will ever be the same, going thru this steroid, HGH, and speed scandal and/or epidemic.
It is kind of weird, because almost all of the "Baby Boomers" heroes in baseball are either gone, or they are out of the lime light altogether. Now we are in a time where the Generation X players are at the end of their careers, or are already retired. We are basically talking about a class of players that broke thru, or were going to break thru to the major leagues, in the years between 1983 thru 1988. Therefore, the fans are forced to look at two different groups of their heroes growing up, the group of heroes that did not do any of the illegal substances (or did not get caught), and the players that did do them allegedly, got caught, or have not been caught.
Example: Will Clark (my favorite all time player) and Rafael Palmiero (a player who wagged his finger at Congress and swore under oath that he "NEVER, did any steroids, or any illegal drugs, and then tested positive within months of that exact hearing this year). Will Clark and Palmiero both played at Mississippi State University. They both were All-Americans, but Clark was the player that won the Golden Spikes award (featuring the best collegiate baseball player) that year and was drafted, touted, and an overall better player out of college. Both players had great careers. However, Will Clark played out his 13 seasons, had more than respectable statistics and retired. On the other hand, illegal steroids, bolstered Palmiero, not only his statistics, years in the league, and overall value in his career value, his stats. and his fan base (equaling money). Palmiero had a shot at the Hall of Fame until he was busted and lied under oath (and it is just my opinion that he was enough of a bubble player, that he will not be voted in now), but Will Clark will not be in that category (nor should he, because of his lack of stats and length of career, even though he played by the rules).
So we go back to the group of the "class of the steroid era": McGwire, Canseco, Palmiero, Clemens, Bonds, and the list goes on, but they are not tried and convicted of anything, all is 'alleged".
However, I remember when I was done playing college baseball, and I started going to the CWS (college world series) in the years between 1994 thru 1997, and I made a subtle joke to a teammate of mine. We were getting tickets when the whole University of Miami team walked by to get into the stadium. I leaned over to my friend when Pat Burrell walked by, as a freshman (leading the NCAA in hitting going into the game at the CWS), and I said, "I bet he spits 90 MPH (miles per hour) on the Jugz Gun." (When going to any pro tryout, out of high school/college, teams look at pitchers who throw over 90 MPH, infielders are hit three ground balls and they have to throw across the diamond and 90 MPH is a prerequisite (unless they have another huge "tool", like speed, power hitting, or more than one), and outfielders have to throw from the outfield to the plate and are "gunned" for a laser beam arm from their position.) I was lucky enough to see the following players, in those years going to the series, Lance Berkman/Rice, J.D. Drew/ASU, Burrell/Miami, Looper and Benson/Clemson, Todd Walker/LSU, and some other fine players, but these guys did not look like they were 18-23 years old. They were all "Power Jawed," 90 MPH spitting, monsters that looked like they were in their mid-to late 20's? That night, after waiting to get tickets and making the joke about spitting, we got to see the 19 year old freshman masher Pat Burell bat third, against the best pitcher in the country, Kris Benson, from about 20 rows behind the plate. Benson's first pitch a fastball, and Burell's first swing was promptlya smashing "CHINK" of the bat, for a double.
I digress. Now that "Mr. Texas," "Mr. Cy Young," "The 'K' King," and simply put "The Rocket" who has been beloved by all for over 20 years now, has been fingered. What is to come of his legacy? Was his throwing bats at Mike Piazza a "Roid Rage incident"? Will people say that his nasty, pitching inside, take no prisoners attitude a product of modern chemistry? Are his Cy Young awards and strike out titles tainted, ever though he is over for all the while defying all of the problems of age, while still having "Barboro's Quads"? Who really cares, about all those questions about Roger Clemens the player. How about Roger Clemens the man, the hero, or the child role model? Is he setting a good example? Is he tainting children and baseball players for a host of generations to come? Throw those questions out too. How about comparing the steroid guys to the Hall of Fame, is it worse to cheat and take drugs that make you bigger, better, and have a longer career by 5 to 10 years? Or is it worse for Pete Rose to bet on baseball and not be in the Hall of Fame? Well, let's throw that one out too.
All of those questions and statements above aside, and completely forget about everything that I have written in this article, period. There are really only a couple of questions and answers that matter. 1. Can anyone watch a baseball game from now on, without thinking about whether the pitcher, the batter, or the players in the field are all "Juiced and Beaned Up?" 2. What kind of example are these baseball players setting, when they have created the only line in the sand that has put a "gray tint" on the game, an unknown filter on the game? I do not know the answers to these two questions. However, I do know that there was a time when the bases were 90 feet apart, the players were all the same physically by the way they were born, how hard they worked, and what they did for themselves, not TO themselves. Baseball used to be the purest game in the world. "America's Pastime" they call it, but what will we call it, if everything that we have gauged the game by, for 120 years is gone? When the ethics of the world, bleeds into the ethics of the game, then there is something very wrong with the world and the sport that cannot keep the cheating out of it. PERIOD!
It is kind of weird, because almost all of the "Baby Boomers" heroes in baseball are either gone, or they are out of the lime light altogether. Now we are in a time where the Generation X players are at the end of their careers, or are already retired. We are basically talking about a class of players that broke thru, or were going to break thru to the major leagues, in the years between 1983 thru 1988. Therefore, the fans are forced to look at two different groups of their heroes growing up, the group of heroes that did not do any of the illegal substances (or did not get caught), and the players that did do them allegedly, got caught, or have not been caught.
Example: Will Clark (my favorite all time player) and Rafael Palmiero (a player who wagged his finger at Congress and swore under oath that he "NEVER, did any steroids, or any illegal drugs, and then tested positive within months of that exact hearing this year). Will Clark and Palmiero both played at Mississippi State University. They both were All-Americans, but Clark was the player that won the Golden Spikes award (featuring the best collegiate baseball player) that year and was drafted, touted, and an overall better player out of college. Both players had great careers. However, Will Clark played out his 13 seasons, had more than respectable statistics and retired. On the other hand, illegal steroids, bolstered Palmiero, not only his statistics, years in the league, and overall value in his career value, his stats. and his fan base (equaling money). Palmiero had a shot at the Hall of Fame until he was busted and lied under oath (and it is just my opinion that he was enough of a bubble player, that he will not be voted in now), but Will Clark will not be in that category (nor should he, because of his lack of stats and length of career, even though he played by the rules).
So we go back to the group of the "class of the steroid era": McGwire, Canseco, Palmiero, Clemens, Bonds, and the list goes on, but they are not tried and convicted of anything, all is 'alleged".
However, I remember when I was done playing college baseball, and I started going to the CWS (college world series) in the years between 1994 thru 1997, and I made a subtle joke to a teammate of mine. We were getting tickets when the whole University of Miami team walked by to get into the stadium. I leaned over to my friend when Pat Burrell walked by, as a freshman (leading the NCAA in hitting going into the game at the CWS), and I said, "I bet he spits 90 MPH (miles per hour) on the Jugz Gun." (When going to any pro tryout, out of high school/college, teams look at pitchers who throw over 90 MPH, infielders are hit three ground balls and they have to throw across the diamond and 90 MPH is a prerequisite (unless they have another huge "tool", like speed, power hitting, or more than one), and outfielders have to throw from the outfield to the plate and are "gunned" for a laser beam arm from their position.) I was lucky enough to see the following players, in those years going to the series, Lance Berkman/Rice, J.D. Drew/ASU, Burrell/Miami, Looper and Benson/Clemson, Todd Walker/LSU, and some other fine players, but these guys did not look like they were 18-23 years old. They were all "Power Jawed," 90 MPH spitting, monsters that looked like they were in their mid-to late 20's? That night, after waiting to get tickets and making the joke about spitting, we got to see the 19 year old freshman masher Pat Burell bat third, against the best pitcher in the country, Kris Benson, from about 20 rows behind the plate. Benson's first pitch a fastball, and Burell's first swing was promptlya smashing "CHINK" of the bat, for a double.
I digress. Now that "Mr. Texas," "Mr. Cy Young," "The 'K' King," and simply put "The Rocket" who has been beloved by all for over 20 years now, has been fingered. What is to come of his legacy? Was his throwing bats at Mike Piazza a "Roid Rage incident"? Will people say that his nasty, pitching inside, take no prisoners attitude a product of modern chemistry? Are his Cy Young awards and strike out titles tainted, ever though he is over for all the while defying all of the problems of age, while still having "Barboro's Quads"? Who really cares, about all those questions about Roger Clemens the player. How about Roger Clemens the man, the hero, or the child role model? Is he setting a good example? Is he tainting children and baseball players for a host of generations to come? Throw those questions out too. How about comparing the steroid guys to the Hall of Fame, is it worse to cheat and take drugs that make you bigger, better, and have a longer career by 5 to 10 years? Or is it worse for Pete Rose to bet on baseball and not be in the Hall of Fame? Well, let's throw that one out too.
All of those questions and statements above aside, and completely forget about everything that I have written in this article, period. There are really only a couple of questions and answers that matter. 1. Can anyone watch a baseball game from now on, without thinking about whether the pitcher, the batter, or the players in the field are all "Juiced and Beaned Up?" 2. What kind of example are these baseball players setting, when they have created the only line in the sand that has put a "gray tint" on the game, an unknown filter on the game? I do not know the answers to these two questions. However, I do know that there was a time when the bases were 90 feet apart, the players were all the same physically by the way they were born, how hard they worked, and what they did for themselves, not TO themselves. Baseball used to be the purest game in the world. "America's Pastime" they call it, but what will we call it, if everything that we have gauged the game by, for 120 years is gone? When the ethics of the world, bleeds into the ethics of the game, then there is something very wrong with the world and the sport that cannot keep the cheating out of it. PERIOD!
IS THE ELITE MEDIA, NEWS OUTLETS, OR JUST REALITY TV WITH BETTER COMMERCIALS?
What happened to actually having a real diverse opinion, and still being able to stand on morals? It does not matter what channel and/or program you turn on, on the "News for the New Millennium" channels. News 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, some claiming to be fair and balanced, others not claiming, just clamoring for ratings. There are some things that you can be assured of, whenever you turn on the "News Channels" (Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, etc....), and the term News is used loosely. Really, when you compare what is on these channels, it is more like a Reality Show on crack cocaine, with a triple shot of testosterone.
Here is one of the, for sure things, that you will get if you turn on your tube to any of the prime cable news outlets. A mediator, some host who has either been brought up "Blue Blood Style" (with all the comforts and breeding the money can buy, throughout his/her life), or you will get the mediator for the "Folks/People" (who has been the guy who has never gotten a break, scratched, clawed, and whacked as many people as he/she had to, in order to get to the spot they are at). If you really scratch the surface, and I am talking "Scratch", it isn't like you have to dig using 20 hour days, for six months to uncover that the "Blue Blood" and the "Made My Own Way" Mediator, are both sitting side by side, with Donald Trump in a luxury box at Yankee Stadium, eating at $200 a plate restaurants, and hobnobbing with any and all of the same people. However, there is not any show unless there is a person, on the show to mediate.
"In right corner, hailing from somewhere on the East Coast, but coming out of Stanford University, and representing the Republican Party, kind of.........blah, blah, blah. In the left corner, hailing from San Francisco, but coming out of the University of New York, and Representing the Liberal Democrat Party kind of.....blah, blah, blah." The only difference between these two people and the mediator, is where they are going to come from, as far as, what they will say. Maybe to sum it up a little better, will they not only have something to say, but also have something that will help, remedy, or at least put a dent into the problem that they are talking about. This is where the second point, usually becomes a huge problem.
There is the mediator, the Right/Republican, and the Left/Democrat, all with their similar backgrounds, places they have been, and the money that they have in the bank. However, that is where the similarity between them really comes to an end, and the "Reality Show" takes over. It usually does not matter what Republican that you throw out there, for the cameras to see. They pretty much stick to the "talking points", for the week, month, or whatever the President said for the day. However, when they do get a chance, or when they are out of script, they have a tendency to actually speak about solving, trying to solve, or at least seem to want to help in the problem. The Republican does stick to the talking points, for the most part, but there seems to be some actually feeling in what is in his/her words. Whether it is Michelle Maulkin, Newt Gingrich, or even old speeches of Ronald Reagan (after his Presidency), their words tend to reflect some notion of meaning, life, and conviction. Then looking across the table, the mediator goes to the left corner, and here comes the talking points from their side (just like the right corner). Now the left corner is out of talking points, from a curve ball by the mediator and/or just that time has ran long, but when the talking points run out, the venom then begins to spew.
Here is when the "Reality Show" starts to take hold, and also when the Democrats lose the majority of real people in the middle of the country (between eastern Pennsylvania to the Rockies and from North Dakota down to Texas), I believe it is called "Fly Over Country". In the notion that all of those Red States, when looking down from their Lear Jets, it is just filled with not only Red States, Red Necks, and therefore it is only good enough to "Fly Over". However, there are a lot of people that do not have red necks, do not "just farm", and aside from Iowa (where your primaries begin), there are states and people that have quite a bit of Gray Matter in their heads. However, when in doubt and the cue cards have run out of their lines, those "Lefties" head for what they know. They head for brawling, MTV's "The Real World" type verbal fights, and what comes out of there mouths are things that leave most of the real people out of there "Progressive Agenda". I use the term "Real People", as those that are not making over $100,000 ayear, have a husband/wife, kids, and feel as though that is the "actual family model". They are people who do not want to hear, those "lefties" denigrate the flag, say that anyone and everyone should be able to marry whomever the wish, and they definitely do not wish to hear every problem with the President, do not wish to hear about how America's Troops are the enemy, and they are 100% against hearing from somebody/anybody bashing, saying, or advocating that the country we are living in is the ENEMY.
The reason that the Democrats lost, in that landslide defeat in 1994, is because of not knowing "Fly Over Country" then. The reason why Bilbeary won the Congressional seat, abandoned by a "Republican Felon", is because his adversary didn't know her own constituents. However, let me give all of you in the "Left Corner", in the Reality Show that you call your life, a small piece of advise. They would listen, they might not agree, and then again maybe they would agree if there was some kind of a solution to all of the "problems" spewing forth out of the "left corner". I might even listen, if you would give me the chance to listen to something that is smart, concise, and is a part of some solution. Give us something new, something bold, something not filled with mold and corruption. Do not give us the "Party of Corruption" speeches, when you have those same kinds in your own party.
The world is slowly turning, slowly growing more and more problems that are real, either be a part of the solution and speak from your heart, both parties, or just don't speak at all. Please, because the people of the world are looking at us, and the people of our country are counting on you, so when you open your mouth make it count, don't just talk to hear yourself talk. Then maybe you might win one heart, one mind, or you might win them both. When you win one heart and mind, that person will tell ten other people, so every heart and mind counts. Act like it, please. I will keep an eye out.
Peace, DMAN
Here is one of the, for sure things, that you will get if you turn on your tube to any of the prime cable news outlets. A mediator, some host who has either been brought up "Blue Blood Style" (with all the comforts and breeding the money can buy, throughout his/her life), or you will get the mediator for the "Folks/People" (who has been the guy who has never gotten a break, scratched, clawed, and whacked as many people as he/she had to, in order to get to the spot they are at). If you really scratch the surface, and I am talking "Scratch", it isn't like you have to dig using 20 hour days, for six months to uncover that the "Blue Blood" and the "Made My Own Way" Mediator, are both sitting side by side, with Donald Trump in a luxury box at Yankee Stadium, eating at $200 a plate restaurants, and hobnobbing with any and all of the same people. However, there is not any show unless there is a person, on the show to mediate.
"In right corner, hailing from somewhere on the East Coast, but coming out of Stanford University, and representing the Republican Party, kind of.........blah, blah, blah. In the left corner, hailing from San Francisco, but coming out of the University of New York, and Representing the Liberal Democrat Party kind of.....blah, blah, blah." The only difference between these two people and the mediator, is where they are going to come from, as far as, what they will say. Maybe to sum it up a little better, will they not only have something to say, but also have something that will help, remedy, or at least put a dent into the problem that they are talking about. This is where the second point, usually becomes a huge problem.
There is the mediator, the Right/Republican, and the Left/Democrat, all with their similar backgrounds, places they have been, and the money that they have in the bank. However, that is where the similarity between them really comes to an end, and the "Reality Show" takes over. It usually does not matter what Republican that you throw out there, for the cameras to see. They pretty much stick to the "talking points", for the week, month, or whatever the President said for the day. However, when they do get a chance, or when they are out of script, they have a tendency to actually speak about solving, trying to solve, or at least seem to want to help in the problem. The Republican does stick to the talking points, for the most part, but there seems to be some actually feeling in what is in his/her words. Whether it is Michelle Maulkin, Newt Gingrich, or even old speeches of Ronald Reagan (after his Presidency), their words tend to reflect some notion of meaning, life, and conviction. Then looking across the table, the mediator goes to the left corner, and here comes the talking points from their side (just like the right corner). Now the left corner is out of talking points, from a curve ball by the mediator and/or just that time has ran long, but when the talking points run out, the venom then begins to spew.
Here is when the "Reality Show" starts to take hold, and also when the Democrats lose the majority of real people in the middle of the country (between eastern Pennsylvania to the Rockies and from North Dakota down to Texas), I believe it is called "Fly Over Country". In the notion that all of those Red States, when looking down from their Lear Jets, it is just filled with not only Red States, Red Necks, and therefore it is only good enough to "Fly Over". However, there are a lot of people that do not have red necks, do not "just farm", and aside from Iowa (where your primaries begin), there are states and people that have quite a bit of Gray Matter in their heads. However, when in doubt and the cue cards have run out of their lines, those "Lefties" head for what they know. They head for brawling, MTV's "The Real World" type verbal fights, and what comes out of there mouths are things that leave most of the real people out of there "Progressive Agenda". I use the term "Real People", as those that are not making over $100,000 ayear, have a husband/wife, kids, and feel as though that is the "actual family model". They are people who do not want to hear, those "lefties" denigrate the flag, say that anyone and everyone should be able to marry whomever the wish, and they definitely do not wish to hear every problem with the President, do not wish to hear about how America's Troops are the enemy, and they are 100% against hearing from somebody/anybody bashing, saying, or advocating that the country we are living in is the ENEMY.
The reason that the Democrats lost, in that landslide defeat in 1994, is because of not knowing "Fly Over Country" then. The reason why Bilbeary won the Congressional seat, abandoned by a "Republican Felon", is because his adversary didn't know her own constituents. However, let me give all of you in the "Left Corner", in the Reality Show that you call your life, a small piece of advise. They would listen, they might not agree, and then again maybe they would agree if there was some kind of a solution to all of the "problems" spewing forth out of the "left corner". I might even listen, if you would give me the chance to listen to something that is smart, concise, and is a part of some solution. Give us something new, something bold, something not filled with mold and corruption. Do not give us the "Party of Corruption" speeches, when you have those same kinds in your own party.
The world is slowly turning, slowly growing more and more problems that are real, either be a part of the solution and speak from your heart, both parties, or just don't speak at all. Please, because the people of the world are looking at us, and the people of our country are counting on you, so when you open your mouth make it count, don't just talk to hear yourself talk. Then maybe you might win one heart, one mind, or you might win them both. When you win one heart and mind, that person will tell ten other people, so every heart and mind counts. Act like it, please. I will keep an eye out.
Peace, DMAN
Is USA Network's "MONK", Smarter than the U.S. National Security?
On the day that the United States killed the most active terrorist in the world Al-Zarqawi, in an air strike, announced by the Prime Minister of Iraq, and happening less than 24 hours ago, there was also a movie playing. The movie starring Denzel Washington, Annette Benning, and Tony Shalhoub (also known as Monk, from the USA NETWORK TV show, "MONK"), is called "The Siege". "The Siege" a movie fully about the seriousness of Islamic Fundamentalism, Islamic-Fascism, or whatever you wish to call the Muslims who have declared Jihad against anyone who is not like them, does not share there views, and most of all does not share their religious prowess. A movie which was made a full five years before 9-11, and the horror watching over 3000 lives snuffed out, by just 19 people who were here to kill us.
Now here we are today, every single television and talk radio station playing video, booking and listening to Pundits, International Specialists on Terrorists, and countless other people, just like on "The Siege". The Fox News Channel had Nick Berg's father on, at around 5:20 A.M. CST, and instead of singing the praises of Al-Zarqawi's death. Mr. Berg actually went off on President Bush, saying "we (the United States) should have never been in Iraq in the first place." Continuing on saying to his interviewers on Fox, " How do you even know that he (Zarqawi) is even dead? You are taking the word of a President that lied to get us into war, lied to us about the majority of the things happening up to the war, and continues to lie today." Instead of continuing the interview, they cut him off, talked over him, and then actually cut the whole feed moving on. A man who had his son beheaded, and then web cast across the whole world for people to see, and because he didn't say, or have the reaction that Fox News wanted, they cut him off totally. Once again, I go back to the movie, and Denzel captures the second cell of terrorists and pumps the television audience into a feeling of accomplishment. A movie that showed, of all people, Arianna Huffington giving her dimwitted opinion (which was fake for the movie, but was her actual opinion in real life) about the terror attacks in the movie. When she gave her opinion, which was not "with the plan", they went to the Republican/Right Leaning man, and then cut to commercial/on with themovie. Sound familiar?
So I ask you this: Is Tony Shalhoub a fortune teller? Are the producers, writers, and stars of "The Siege" the prophets of today? Of course they are not. However, it never ceases to amaze me, how movies that come out years before, are actually telling us (in an ever so subtle way, if we would just listen), WAKE UP!!!!!! There are people that are in the world, that are not like Americans. There are people who view the world as GOOD vs. EVIL, my religion vs. your religion, BLACK vs. WHITE, and finally extremist/fundamentalist vs. normal religious people. We are fighting MUSLIM EXTREMISTS, if you cannot say it, then you mine as well not even have an opinion. If you think that because we kill one person, like Al-Zarqawi, that we have won the war you are wrong. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and all of the people who are saying that this is going to change and win this war tomorrow, are wrong. What about Indonesia, countries in Africa, Central America and all of the other places in the world that is harboring terrorists? How about the people that were caught in Canada? Do you think that they were the only cell in that whole country? Finally (but certainly not lastly), what about the "sleeper home grown cells" here in America? Do you really think that they are not reading and probably going to speed things up now, just to prove a point?
I do not want to speak such ill will. I am glad that Al-Zarqawi is gone (Not that I would wish anyone dead, because I would not), but he was just one person. We as a world, not just a country, as a world need to not be so short sighted. We need to not worry about ratings, about selling papers, and we need to start looking at things the way they are, BLACK AND WHITE. We may never actually stop someone from walking into a movie theatre and blowing themselves up. John F. Kennedy said, you can never stop anyone from killing the President if they are willing to kill themselves, to do it (also in the movie, "In the Line of Fire"). If you can kill a President, if you are willing to kill yourself, then you will be able to kill any amount of "normal" people/innocent people, if you are also willing to pay that price.
I do not think that MONK, is a prophet, fortune teller, or someone with vast knowledge. I just think that the majority of people are walking around, near sighted, wishing for things fast, easy, and always looking out for themselves. Which is actually one of the reasons that the Muslims, the Extremists, and all the others want us dead, and it is because of our way of life.
Maybe today, just for one minute, anyone who may read this could throw up a prayer to God, and thank him for just being able to live on this world. Not for any reason, but just because.
Peace and God Bless,
DMAN
Now here we are today, every single television and talk radio station playing video, booking and listening to Pundits, International Specialists on Terrorists, and countless other people, just like on "The Siege". The Fox News Channel had Nick Berg's father on, at around 5:20 A.M. CST, and instead of singing the praises of Al-Zarqawi's death. Mr. Berg actually went off on President Bush, saying "we (the United States) should have never been in Iraq in the first place." Continuing on saying to his interviewers on Fox, " How do you even know that he (Zarqawi) is even dead? You are taking the word of a President that lied to get us into war, lied to us about the majority of the things happening up to the war, and continues to lie today." Instead of continuing the interview, they cut him off, talked over him, and then actually cut the whole feed moving on. A man who had his son beheaded, and then web cast across the whole world for people to see, and because he didn't say, or have the reaction that Fox News wanted, they cut him off totally. Once again, I go back to the movie, and Denzel captures the second cell of terrorists and pumps the television audience into a feeling of accomplishment. A movie that showed, of all people, Arianna Huffington giving her dimwitted opinion (which was fake for the movie, but was her actual opinion in real life) about the terror attacks in the movie. When she gave her opinion, which was not "with the plan", they went to the Republican/Right Leaning man, and then cut to commercial/on with themovie. Sound familiar?
So I ask you this: Is Tony Shalhoub a fortune teller? Are the producers, writers, and stars of "The Siege" the prophets of today? Of course they are not. However, it never ceases to amaze me, how movies that come out years before, are actually telling us (in an ever so subtle way, if we would just listen), WAKE UP!!!!!! There are people that are in the world, that are not like Americans. There are people who view the world as GOOD vs. EVIL, my religion vs. your religion, BLACK vs. WHITE, and finally extremist/fundamentalist vs. normal religious people. We are fighting MUSLIM EXTREMISTS, if you cannot say it, then you mine as well not even have an opinion. If you think that because we kill one person, like Al-Zarqawi, that we have won the war you are wrong. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and all of the people who are saying that this is going to change and win this war tomorrow, are wrong. What about Indonesia, countries in Africa, Central America and all of the other places in the world that is harboring terrorists? How about the people that were caught in Canada? Do you think that they were the only cell in that whole country? Finally (but certainly not lastly), what about the "sleeper home grown cells" here in America? Do you really think that they are not reading and probably going to speed things up now, just to prove a point?
I do not want to speak such ill will. I am glad that Al-Zarqawi is gone (Not that I would wish anyone dead, because I would not), but he was just one person. We as a world, not just a country, as a world need to not be so short sighted. We need to not worry about ratings, about selling papers, and we need to start looking at things the way they are, BLACK AND WHITE. We may never actually stop someone from walking into a movie theatre and blowing themselves up. John F. Kennedy said, you can never stop anyone from killing the President if they are willing to kill themselves, to do it (also in the movie, "In the Line of Fire"). If you can kill a President, if you are willing to kill yourself, then you will be able to kill any amount of "normal" people/innocent people, if you are also willing to pay that price.
I do not think that MONK, is a prophet, fortune teller, or someone with vast knowledge. I just think that the majority of people are walking around, near sighted, wishing for things fast, easy, and always looking out for themselves. Which is actually one of the reasons that the Muslims, the Extremists, and all the others want us dead, and it is because of our way of life.
Maybe today, just for one minute, anyone who may read this could throw up a prayer to God, and thank him for just being able to live on this world. Not for any reason, but just because.
Peace and God Bless,
DMAN
No Black and White, Just P.C. Gray
Canada finds enough explosive materials to blow up three Oklahoma FBI Buildings, and then it takes two minutes to use the word Muslim into their lead in, for the Muslim Fanatics that were planning on blowing up at least five possible targets in there own country. Is that P.C. enough for you?
Molesting, Raping, or just mistreating kids. Women teachers having sex with their students, by the truck load. Then our quality judges, who make Duke Cunningham look like John "the Duke" Wayne", decide that they are either "to short", to pretty, or just to not ready, able to survive, or whatever to serve jail time. Is that P.C. enough for you?
Millions of "ILLEGAL" Aliens pouring across our pouring across the Mexican border, sending enough money back to their, "actual home", Mexico, that it is actually their second biggest contribution to their national income/GNP. Yet, we have a United States Senate Bill that says: "Go ahead and stay, bring your friends, family, and anyone that you met along the way, because we are not going to close the border first. As a matter of fact, we are not going to get it closed, for another 1-4 years." Which allows roughly another 3-5 million more coming in. The senate doesn't begin to tell anyone in the country, unless you look deep into the statistics (or happen to catch it on a Cable News Network), that up to one sixth have commited a violate felony. Over 75% of the country want the border to be completely taken care of, shut down, and making sure that drug, human, and arms runners/coyotes are blocked from coming into our country. However, that is not in sight. Instead, the Senate has made the Congress be "the bad guy", to veto their amnesty bill. Is that P.C. enough, passing the buck, so you do not get voted out of your job?
Whether it is: 1. Muslims who want all Christians, Jews, and basically anyone white, or "Infedels" to die. 2. Ridiculous judges making gay, piligomous marriages, and then letting rapists and women teachers to walk, rather than face jail. 3. Our constant influx of people racing across our border, like the Running of the Bulls, in Spain. The bottom line is nothing is getting done. It is easier to be Politically Correct, make sure to try and keep your job, C.Y.A., and then duck and let whatever flys, to fly. Then to make a hard choice, do the right thing, and start playing hardball (and I am not talking Democratic Pundit Chris Mathews "Hardball"). If something doesn't happen soon, which it is not, then we are in for the biggest wake up call in the United States and the free world, possibly in the last 300 years. PERIOD!!!!!
MORE TO COME, and let me have it.
Peace and God Bless,
DMAN
Molesting, Raping, or just mistreating kids. Women teachers having sex with their students, by the truck load. Then our quality judges, who make Duke Cunningham look like John "the Duke" Wayne", decide that they are either "to short", to pretty, or just to not ready, able to survive, or whatever to serve jail time. Is that P.C. enough for you?
Millions of "ILLEGAL" Aliens pouring across our pouring across the Mexican border, sending enough money back to their, "actual home", Mexico, that it is actually their second biggest contribution to their national income/GNP. Yet, we have a United States Senate Bill that says: "Go ahead and stay, bring your friends, family, and anyone that you met along the way, because we are not going to close the border first. As a matter of fact, we are not going to get it closed, for another 1-4 years." Which allows roughly another 3-5 million more coming in. The senate doesn't begin to tell anyone in the country, unless you look deep into the statistics (or happen to catch it on a Cable News Network), that up to one sixth have commited a violate felony. Over 75% of the country want the border to be completely taken care of, shut down, and making sure that drug, human, and arms runners/coyotes are blocked from coming into our country. However, that is not in sight. Instead, the Senate has made the Congress be "the bad guy", to veto their amnesty bill. Is that P.C. enough, passing the buck, so you do not get voted out of your job?
Whether it is: 1. Muslims who want all Christians, Jews, and basically anyone white, or "Infedels" to die. 2. Ridiculous judges making gay, piligomous marriages, and then letting rapists and women teachers to walk, rather than face jail. 3. Our constant influx of people racing across our border, like the Running of the Bulls, in Spain. The bottom line is nothing is getting done. It is easier to be Politically Correct, make sure to try and keep your job, C.Y.A., and then duck and let whatever flys, to fly. Then to make a hard choice, do the right thing, and start playing hardball (and I am not talking Democratic Pundit Chris Mathews "Hardball"). If something doesn't happen soon, which it is not, then we are in for the biggest wake up call in the United States and the free world, possibly in the last 300 years. PERIOD!!!!!
MORE TO COME, and let me have it.
Peace and God Bless,
DMAN
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)