So, which is it., ABC? Is five years or life in prison the maximum?
Showing posts with label writing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label writing. Show all posts
A Killer's Obsession: Subjects and Verbs as Evil Plot
The "Tucson shooter," Jared Loughner, is not alone in thinking that rules of grammar are part of a ploy to push us around, I learned from a NY Times blog post. Many of his (Loughner's) online rants were quoted, the Saturday afternoon he'd tried to kill a Congresswoman and did kill six others, by at least one news channel -- Fox News. The readings were an effort to try to gain some insight into the mind of the killer in the hours just after his horrific assault.
There was broad acknowledgement a few weeks after the shootings that Loughner was a deeply troubled person for some time. The day of the shootings, though, I found his complaints about grammar to be writings coming from an obviously disturbed mind. He was struggling with much in life, and somehow, grammar rules were an assault on his freedom.
While some tried to connect far-right influences, radio and TV show hosts, and other people to this lone wolf with a gun, listening to the guy's rants about (among other subjects) grammar offered a glimpse into a very disjointed thinking process, and a poor writer. He was not obsessed with writing well, however, only with grammar as a control mechanism.
The NEW YORK TIMES piece reflects on the wider idea of grammar as a means of social control. The related links below include a few pieces on the troubled killer's obsessions.
NYC: Subjects and Verbs as Evil Plot
(The New York Times)
"Even before the Tucson shootings, Jared L. Loughner acted weirdly and darkly in many ways. Nonetheless, for bizarreness, his rants about grammar stand out": http://nyti.ms/hhyNu5
- jR
We can hold onto relative peace with nuclear arms, perhaps only with them
Image via WikipediaFrom Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, many world leaders have wanted nukes to go away. It's a shame leaders still seem to think it's a scary power source, as Obama seems to (he is encouraging all sorts of alternatives to fossil fuels, and nuclear isn't one).
It would be nice to rid of these armaments, but impossible to see happen. There's one 20th century event that will prevent the complete eradication of nuclear arms: the fall of the Soviet Union. That's the tidiest questionable variable in the nuclear device problem. It's possible, as presented in the book by Tom Clancy (and the movie, though its story varied significantly from the book, the essence of the nuclear bombing did not vary), The Sum of All Fears, that a missing warhead could find its way to the wrong hands.
If we eliminate the known nuclear devices, some group could have an "unknown" device, or several devices -- devices reported missing or stolen, falsely claimed as dismantled, or somehow wrongly acquired -- and they could commit the ultimate guerrilla attack without fear of equal retaliation against their people. Even the most morose extremist and terrorist leader, I want to believe, does not want to see his homeland decimated by nuclear missiles, nor would they likely avoid arrest in any sponsoring nation, with the threat of nuclear attack hanging over. There's only so far that the honor of martyrdom will go, even with the distorted beliefs of extremist communities, terrorist groups and their sponsor states.
Barring the horrific possibility of a Sum of All Fears-type attack, nuclear bombs came from a Pandora's Box, and it cannot be closed. Until the tracking and detection of what's in nuclear devices grows to the degree that we could locate one anywhere at any time, only the naive would try to see the end of the known nuclear devices. But the Nobel committee gave Barack Obama the Peace Prize in part for his stated interest in seeing an end to nuclear arms. How, exactly, will this be accomplished?
Why Nukes Are Necessary: To Stop Industrial-Scale War - TIME
As long as a nukeless world remains wishful thinking and pastoral rhetoric, we'll be all right. But if the Nobel Committee truly cares about peace, its members will think a little harder about trying to make it a reality. Open a history book and you'll see what the modern world looks like without nuclear weapons. It is horrible beyond description. ...For more on the nuclear weapons problem, search the Internet. Here's some additional work regarding Pres. Ronald Reagan's approach to nukes and the USSR:
Industrial killing was practiced by many nations in the old world without nuclear weapons. Soldiers were gassed and machine-gunned by the hundreds of thousands in the trenches of World War I, when Hitler was just another corporal in the Kaiser's army. By World War II, countries on both sides of the war used airplanes and artillery to rain death on battlefields as well as cities, until the number killed around the world was so huge that the best estimates of the total number lost diverge by some 16 million souls. The dead numbered 62 million or 78 million — somewhere in there.
- Reagan's Nuclear Weapons legacy (Heritage.org)
- George Schultz on Ronald Reagan (PBS)
Cong. Alan Grayson visits Ocala local leaders, gets jeers from detractors
Who will stop the $1 million man? The man who almost lost, and spent lots of his own money to win in the leadership lottery. A congressman who is a national embarrassment (I like to think) for anyone who looks at politics as something more than a Jerry Springer Show form of reality entertainment.
Alan Grayson, a lawyer who was known for fighting corruption, is a first term congressman for a gerrymandered district taking in part of Orlando and lots of other areas.
Alan Grayson, a lawyer who was known for fighting corruption, is a first term congressman for a gerrymandered district taking in part of Orlando and lots of other areas.
In 2008, Grayson spent around $1 million of his own money to beat an average, and unpopular, GOP congressman named Ric Keller. Grayson won with only 52% of the vote. There were a lot of noses held shut in November 2008 inside the voting booths of Florida District 8, I suspect.
Lots of people, even outside the district, seem to admire Grayson, for "telling it like it is". Whatever "it" is, it is not clear without a lengthy explanation with plenty of projecting by the explainer. Fans hear what they want to hear from Grayson, and nothing he says matters to his fans, just that he's being against The Other Side. He stated the GOP health reform plan was to have everyone sick "die quickly". Hmm. Can I see that bill? It was meant to be funny. (Alert: he is not a funny man, except perhaps creepy funny.)
He expanded on that, saying we should prevent a national "holocaust" by accepting a massive health reform plan that amounts to a huge, costly entitlement program very much like Medicare. (You know how well that program's doing in controlling spending, don't you? It is not well, not well at all.)
He expanded on that, saying we should prevent a national "holocaust" by accepting a massive health reform plan that amounts to a huge, costly entitlement program very much like Medicare. (You know how well that program's doing in controlling spending, don't you? It is not well, not well at all.)
He did a lot of good in his legal career, in the fight against government contract corruption, proving to be a standout in that area. It would be nice to see him return to that arena. One can dream, can't one (or millions)? After all, he thinks he's being clear, and that's stunningly funny (quote from Ocala.com site):
Grayson has upset Republicans - and even a few Democrats - with some of his rhetoric in recent weeks, including his statements on the Republicans' position on health care and a reference to an adviser to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as a "K Street whore.""A few Democrats"? Seriously? Only a few? Gag. If so, that's what's wrong with Democrats these days -- no longer the party of a Truman or a JFK, or even an Olympia Snowe (har har).
The remarks have made Grayson a media and Internet sensation.
In an interview, the congressman attributed that reaction to people having become accustomed to a "culture of dishonesty" in Washington, where elected leaders shrink from telling what they really think on issues.
You would probably find that view laughable if you watched a series of clips of Grayson's prepared and practiced antics, on the floor of the US House, doing some of this "telling it like it is", and using "holocaust" regarding the -- unholy? -- lack of health coverage in the States. You could also visit his shamelessly pandering site, namesofthedead.com, which celebrates, apparently, everyone who died not from illness, but illness made clearly worse -- one would think from his rhetoric -- by insufficient medical care or health coverage.
Or, you could not go to the site, and just hope he goes back to fighting corruption in 2011.
Or, you could not go to the site, and just hope he goes back to fighting corruption in 2011.
Read the whole Ocala.com article at the site.
- j Ruse (aka AirFarceOne, on Twitter)
Sen. "No Tax Cuts" Kerry sent letter by Hamas, to give to Obama
From the Daily Beast news portal: Dear Barack, From Hamas - The Daily Beast
Hamas has a message for President Obama. And who better to deliver it than Sen. John Kerry, visiting Gaza this week? A senior UN official told BBC News that the letter has been received by the UN, but would not specify if Kerry had been the one to accept it. The Massachusetts Democrat did not meet with Hamas, instead focusing on humanitarian concerns.So, what did the letter have in it? Was it like this?
"[The visit] does not indicate any shift whatsoever with respect to Hamas...what it indicates is our effort to listen and to learn," Kerry said.
Dear Pres. Obama:Silly terrorists, Obama is an American, a Christian, and no matter how liberal he is, he is not a tool and not going to make nice with you till you start changing... everything about your group's goals and how you wish to achieve them.
Please destroy Israel so we may rule the planet from Jerusalem as Muslim brothers with the fundamentalist imams of the Muslim world. Oh, and death to all infidels. Imshalla!
The BBC piece goes into it with more detail, but not giving up whether the letter will be read by Obama:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hamas 'sends Barack Obama letter'
The Palestinian group Hamas has sent a letter addressed to the US president via a US politician visiting Gaza, a senior UN official has said.
UN relief agency chief Karen Abu Zayd told the BBC the letter had been received by the UN and passed on.
She did not say if Senator John Kerry had accepted it, and there were no details about the letter's contents.
The US views Hamas, which seized control of Gaza in 2007, as a terrorist organisation and will not deal with it.
A spokeswoman for the US consulate said it was thought to be the first visit by US congressmen for at least four years.
Mr Kerry also visited the Israeli town of Sderot, a target of Palestinian rocket attacks, before entering Gaza.
Standing in front of a pile of used rockets, Mr Kerry said that both he and President Obama believed that nobody should have to spend their lives in fear of attack.
[Kerry stated:] "We are sympathetic with the crisis that people face on a daily basis here in Israel, from those who choose no other path other than to use instruments of terror."
Earlier he said: "[The visit] does not indicate any shift whatsoever with respect to Hamas... what it indicates is our effort to listen and to learn."
Hamas won elections in 2006 and consolidated control by force in 2007.
I am glad Kerry respects the hardships of Israelis being threatened for years with the small but deadly -- terrorizing -- missiles (unless you are a glib, spoiled, child-like game console junkie, you recognize that any size missile is threatening, thus coming as an act of aggression). It gives me hope that his dolt elitist views of many things at home are not all-encompassing.I am fascinated by what this letter from Hamas might have in it. Might it be a rambling rants such as some public letters from Iran's Ahmedinejahd or al-Qaeda leaders? Or will it have something worth reading to someone who believes in human freedom? That is, will it be readable for people who have worked to practice human freedoms despite the foul smell of history and the setbacks of modern despots? That is, would it be worth reading by someone who prefers not using terrorism to claim land and power at the cost of one's own people's -- and others') freedoms and lives?
If we do hear, will it be made public by Hamas itself, or will the White House accept it and present it themselves, first? I am hoping that it must be made public by Hamas. Why? For the White House to accept a letter from the group that clearly proclaimed that the time for peace ended -- irreversibly ended -- hardly gives promise to any proper evolution of any peace plan. Hamas insists that Fatah must go, thus, it is Hamas that ought to go. They are aggressors amongst their own people, and against Israel. As a matter of practice, Hamas uses the deaths of innocents among their own people, during the retaliatory stirkes by Israel, as public relations tools. It gets no more foul that that.
If the letter from Hamas is accepted by the White House, at least right now as they act so cruelly as to use their own people's lives as chum to the world media's biases, it will show that Obama is no diplomat, just a soppy, liberal politician. And, a fool for fascists to toy with. There can be ways to dress this up as a meaningless thing, a mere willingness to accept the mail. Accepting the letter, it can be argued, would change nothing. However, that logic may only go so far: On the world stage of diplomacy, it might be a thundering misstep. It would suggest that the new US President is not only far different politically and in his perspective from GW Bush, but that he is willing to show a blind openness that attracts the fundamentalists, who wish us gone, like ants to a dying dog.
Just my two cents.
- jR
Powered by ScribeFire.
GOP selects black dude, 'what?' moment courtesy of NY Times
The Mexican-sponsored, conservative-bashing, often deceptively liberal clarion (OK, The Nation and TIME do it as much, so perhaps "clarion" is harsh) publication, the NY Times, continued its jab and run efforts to brazenly distort the ranks and reach of the biggest party for conservatives and political right of America upon the selection of the new Republican Nat'l Committee chairman.
While reporting on the election of the new, -- take a breath in order to state some "obvious," "bigoted" reasons why they did it, lefties -- black (!!!) RNC chairman, they might as well have belabored the fact that the guy is not a black space alien, thus the RNC is still -- as they see it -- the small-minded party of bigots. After all, they took Al Gore from the White House, the bad people.
Republicans Choose First Black Party Chairman - NYTimes.com
From the start, Mr. [Katon] Dawson, while well-liked in the party, was hampered by worries that his selection would reinforce the notion that Republicans are increasingly becoming a Southern regional party.What? The GOP is risking being considered a regional party. Seriously? Notion, huh? Of whom? And barbecue-lovin', drawlin', Democratic Party paragons Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, are what, exactly? Too far into the past, are they? Not sure they would agree.
Is that quote the dumbest sentence in the NY Times for the day? I want to hope so, but I can only guess. It is a poorly written sentence (but since I note it in a hastily written blog, I will only point that out in passing, adding that the NYT piece was not from a blog).
I suppose around the NY Times offices, GOP chairman Michael Steele might be nicknamed Uncle, uhh, Mike, for being in with the slave owners of the GOP, too. Next there'll be a cartoon on their opinion page with Uncle Mike being denied service at the GOP's HQ cafeteria.
The paper also mentioned this, before bothering to go into Steele's win any further:
Mr. Dawson also withdrew from an all-white country club he belonged before he started running for office, a point that was raised by Republicans concerned that it would provide a bad contrast in a year when the country elected its first African-American president.
Now, the fact that there exists clubs that are intentionally (I don't care what they claim, I mean a presumed intent) all-white anywhere is disgusting to me (unless, of course, there are nothing but white people in the general area). But, to me, such clubs simply remind us that there are more white snobs than other types of snobs in the country. I wish they'd spend more time in those clubs, and less time ruining the fight for scraps of the rest of us.
Democrats should really beat this one to death, even though this Dawson dude didn't get the chairmanship. You know there's never, ever been a white Democrat member of an all-white country club, that's simply unimaginable. And never were any of the important members of the Democratic Party ever in any groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, or some all-white frat or anything, or directing hoses to be fired in the direction of blacks, or anything like that. Nope! Never!
Mr. Steele made no mention of his race in his acceptance speech, and members said that was not a major factor in their decision. Nonetheless, it was clearly a force, playing out at a time when the nation has just inaugurated its first black president.The song was a parody, and it actually was a response, meant in humor, to a LA Times article from which that phrase came. But don't confuse anyone with the facts, just poop out propaganda for sucker liberals to step onto -- and walk it around.
In addition to Mr. Duncan’s experience with a white country club, another candidate for candidate — Chip Saltsman of Tennessee — came under fire after distributing a Christmas CD with a song parody entitled, “Barack the Magic Negro.”
As usual, the liberal obsession is with things such as race, sexual interests, and how to ban dodge ball and God from playgrounds. Let's hope at least one knows how to save the world from the bums that hate America. A JFK-type of Democrat. In other words, not a rabid, bellowing liberal.
Ron Brown was the first and only black chairman of the DNC, from 1989 to 1992.
- jR
The People's Voice: a babbling manifesto for the rest of, umm, them
Part 2 of series:
Blogs with no purpose except to whine about the world not fitting their fantasy
Label to look for: slobbering blog
The People's Voice
Need proof of the systemic rot eroding the very cores of our souls? Look no further than the meteoric rise of the grossly under-qualified, hyper-ambitious, morally retarded narcissist who still has a realistic chance to be one heart-beat away from ostensibly ruling the most powerful nation in the world. Palinesque tendencies to “drill, drill, drill,” exploit obscene technological advantages to “cull predatory species,” employ our “justice” system to accelerate the extinction of yet another species (to advance the interests of Big Oil no less), and perpetuate the murderous “sport” of hunting with the intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt justifications of “necessity” and “cultural tradition” serve to shred our ridiculously thin façade of humanity and reveal the truly barbarous nature of Western “civilization” and the “American Way of Life.”
I'm sorry, were you saying something? I was busy watching the paint dry on my secret tree house.
If you think that I am simply anti-liberal, try again.
This site includes among its troupe of sensible activists a pack of mixed nuts who say the Internet as we know it will cease to exist in 2012, maybe sooner. One of them, a gal who wears a near dominatrix (but friendlier) outfit, was earlier offering to have sex with guys who sign on to the activist effort to keep the Net free. Virgins only, though. Sorry, Noam Chomsky.
And these people are taken seriously by someone out there. Awesome.
These people are genuine kooks! These are the folks that gun laws are created to protect... to protect others from them should their nut-job ideas and worries turn into urban assaults on the dangerous "enemy others" with their legally-procured guns (if you aren't diagnosed, you're still considered sane, sadly).
- jR
Powered by ScribeFire.
Recession, recovery, or other: Word definitions and other confusing things
Forbes, as I've noted before, tends to report against the predominant ignorance of mainstream (middling educated) media, popular opinion and political convenience. The magazine's pieces tend to follow some sort of logic -- imagine that.
In early December 2008, it was announced that the U.S. had been in a recession for roughly a year, to the surprise of anyone who actually knows that a recession is. I mistakenly assumed that this meant the quarterly GDP reports for that period were to be officially adjusted. I was wrong. But did the mainstream media grab onto this? No, they didn't. However, Forbes actually looked at the numbers and filled in the holes that I found in the government's assertion.
Congratulations, It's A Recession - Forbes.com
They pointed out that a "popular yardstick for recession -- two successive quarters of GDP decline, has not yet been reached. The economy dipped (-.2% GDP) in the fourth quarter of 2007. But in the first quarter of 2008 it grew .9%, and in the second quarter, it grew 2.8%.
The economy tends to be well on the road to recovery before unemployment starts to fall. In 1990-91, it was 15 months after the bottom of the recession that unemployment peaked. After the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2001, unemployment peaked 19 months later. That means the unemployment rate of 6.5% is likely to get worse for some months before it gets better.Surprise! We've had a recession for a year already! Even though GDP has not been in the negative consistently, we have been in a recession. The definition is changed, it would appear. That's fine -- I would rather see economists err on the side of caution than -- it sounds pale just thinking it, seeing it is how we got here -- to approach things with too much (bloated) confidence.Minding the maxim on investment prospectuses, past performance is not a guarantee of future results. The NBER puts it tersely: "The committee does not forecast." The amount of time until recovery depends largely on what happens to falling home prices and troubled credit markets.
But at least it's nice to be talking about "recovery" instead of tip-toeing around "recession."
What kills me is these folks who have been stammering around proclaiming we were in a recession, a deep recession, a depression, without even actually comprehending outside of the self-centered little universe they live in, what any of that actually is, will now think they are brilliant for having been proclaiming recession since they lost their CRA-mortgaged house when their unemployment ran out. Or something.
Those folks, though, will never learn. They don't want to learn, they just want to complain. That's what they do. Perhaps under Obama, they will hold their tongue for a while longer at least, since the great Prince of Darkness will no longer be (a) the president, (b) the vice-president, (c) the Treasury secretary, (d) host of the Tonight Show...
- jR
Powered by ScribeFire.
Sean Penn: Mountain of questionable, umm, conclusions?
Sean Penn: Mountain of Snakes
Sean Penn is a writer. Why is he a writer? I can only guess it is because he is a celebrity and a fan of communism versus capitalism. Because he is part and parcel of the Hollywood elite. Here's a quote from this article that I suspect explains how Sean Penn has been entitled to speak for America, and specifically, American liberals (poor liberals): "...the fact is,[sic] that our most respected, call that mainstream media, in print and on television are, in part, conscious manufacturers of deception." I bolded the important words so the commas and garbage wouldn't get in the way. What is it? And why is he writing it? Why him, and to what end? Am I required to read this entire piece of bunk to "get it"? Sorry, I have to have a life outside of being mystified by celebrity writers.
So glad that's OK with you, Mr. Penn. Liberals, oddly, have not been bothered by propaganda in journalism, perhaps, is his point. It is certainly loud and clear in the example of MSNBC and TIME magazine. So why does Penn have an issue with it? One can only interpret his broad point, since that sentence, his words generally, make no sense on their own.
Here's another piece of valuable commentary, perhaps it is his self-centeredness that is driving his exposure of the media: "Meanwhile, I challenge anyone to hunt up the few pictures that were taken by the random photojournalists who'd stumbled upon me, and find a single one that would've passed the test of my own narcissistic scrutiny."
Dear Sean Penn: Nobody with a good reason to live cares about your self-adulation. But, in that topic, I should note that it doesn't mix well with your liberal white guilt (see 'Milk' interview by Penn with Charlie Rose).
Please, Mr. Penn, please continue writing. You are good entertainment for those who know how to write, for real.
Despite multiple assassination attempts by the CIA on his older brother Fidel, the destabilization tactics of Robert F. Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs, The Platt Amendment with the taking of Guantanamo Bay, and even despite an endless and unjustified embargo (in effect: blockade) on Cuba by the United States, here we were in 2008, and Raul Castro said flat out that if the American people, who today stand with candidate Barack Obama, continue to stand with President Barack Obama, then "meaningful and productive advances could be achieved in Cuba and the world."He must have accidentally left out the Mariana Boatlift, in which Castro sent his worst -- WORST -- criminials to American shores. That must have been America's fault, too.
Says the economist, Penn: "Free market capitalism and greed in the hands of humans are, in fact, a marriage that never rids itself of the demon. They are of one body."
"In the hands of humans"? As opposed to under the hooves of jackasses? What's the need for that phrase? Wait: Is that a terribly naive question? Yes, it is, considering the topic inspiring the question.
Well, the real impression for me here is this: Can it get any better than this for Americans with a clue? I mean ones who are not socialists or communists, of course. If you buy into socialism -- the Bolivarian type -- and Castro's governing tactics. But real Socialists and Communists, not to be confused with far-left Democrats. They do pose as far-left Dems, like Penn here does, clearly. He is clearly confusing freedom with popular oppression. But that's throwing stones.
I guess Sean might take after his dad the accused communist. While Joe McCarthy's un-American committee was not right, neither is Sean Penn's obfuscate attack on the system that netted him, too, tons of cash. TONS. Did I mention that Sean Penn is rich thanks to the system he hates, and seems far from loathing himself for it? If his dad was a communist, that certainly rubbed off on Sean, even judging this writing liberally; if he was hypocrite, then Sean didn't fall far from that tree.
The Huffington Post is desperate for writers, enough to put this garbagge on their site? I find that hard to believe. They must be simply desperate for the inclusion of far-leftist celebrities who are willing to write odd little mementos from far-leftist countries.
- jR
Powered by ScribeFire.
Seriously: Obama invites the crisis of satire? FastCompany.com
Can We Laugh at Obama? | Culture Nuggets | Fast Company
After witnessing two years of emotional wrangling and finger-pointing, most of us are relieved to put the election season behind us. But as the nation transitions from the erratic, divisive Bush-era into the historically momentous presidency of Obama the [rhetorician], some journalists are declaring crisis mode on a flourishing art form: the political satire. Bush-impersonations have gone past the point of cliché, but no comedian is yet to figure out how to nail the uniquely relatable stateliness of Barack Obama. And most importantly, would audiences even respond if satirists like [Jon] Stewart mocked the messiah-like figure of so many Americans?I think I may start to do stand-up then. And I won't even be zealous about it, just exaggerated, absurd and mocking. Who knows? I might actually get my own radio program, because God knows it is the only medium even remotely friendly to Obama-panning humor. Can't say that of print or TV.
Powered by ScribeFire.
To TIME: If Joe Klein grilled Obama, readers got salmonella
The TIME cover and the relevant coverage inside the mag, dated Nov. 3, 2008, is a fine example of why I think U.S. media is falling on its face. It has little to do with ad sales, and more to do with disingenuous and propagandist coverage.
Or, look at this as a good laugh at the expense of the People magazine of news magazines, TIME.
You cannot find that article online. Why? The headline doesn't exist online. Have a look at the contents page (if the link works): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601081103,00.html
If cooks grilled steak, chicken or hamburgers like Joe Klein "grilled" Obama in the Nov. 3, 2008 issue of TIME, then there would be a long line of violently ill, even dead, people trailing from restaurants, backyards and parks all over the country to the nearest hospital!
"Joe Klein Grills Obama" was the headline. It was on the COVER of the issue, a
bove the flag (see images) and got a photo on page 6, with the editor's comments (always an interesting read, for a mackerel).
But I digress. Look at the pics (click then to view a bit larger).
You cannot find that article online. Why? The headline doesn't exist online. Have a look at the contents page (if the link works): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601081103,00.html
I might guess, being a wise ass, that the headline was supposed to be a joke, perhaps a Halloween bit of foolery -- ON THE FRONT COVER OF THE MAGAZINE. Such things have happened, like in newspapers kids create at colleges with no budget and volunteer staffs. But then, only maybe, and even then there would be outrage among SOME staffers for the gaff. But not here! Not for TIME magazine. Nothing noted in the next issue.
The designers and editors forgot to change it to something less engaging (and thus to something realistic). But I think it is the finest example yet this year of promoting soft-paw coverage as engaging journalism, even from this Obamadoring publication. The interview was a grilling? Hmmm ...
If cooks grilled steak, chicken or hamburgers like Joe Klein "grilled" Obama in the Nov. 3, 2008 issue of TIME, then there would be a long line of violently ill, even dead, people trailing from restaurants, backyards and parks all over the country to the nearest hospital!
Orlando daily stands behind Obama
Orlando Sentinel endorses Barack Obama for president
In this White House race, there is (at least) one Florida paper, so far, that has endorsed Obama in an impressive fashion, despite my views. I tried to shoot down all the garbage that the Miami Herald placed in their inane endorsement of Obama. I ran out of energy and sheer will to resist. It was like pitting myself, with a lack of coffee, against the Darth Vader of bad endorsements.
Regretfully, one of my favorite papers while I grew up and in my early adult years has increase their editorial value through their endorsement of Obama. Regretfully, because I don't share the total views, but not because I disagree with their handling of the endorsement. I favor a McCain presidency, and I will stay that well after Nov. 4, 2008, no matter what the election results. That is being sincere, as opposed to being covertly biased.
To the Orl Sent: I hope you're wrong today, but come the morning Nov. 5, or whenever the election is finally decided, I will certainly be more willing to look to your pages than those of the Miami Herald.
In this election period, "it is not idiotic" is nearly the highest compliment I can offer a newspaper's editorial staff regarding an endorsement. If the Miami Herald is any example, it is a wasteland out there. Not only does our politics need to change, but much about our mainstream media needs to as well.
In this White House race, there is (at least) one Florida paper, so far, that has endorsed Obama in an impressive fashion, despite my views. I tried to shoot down all the garbage that the Miami Herald placed in their inane endorsement of Obama. I ran out of energy and sheer will to resist. It was like pitting myself, with a lack of coffee, against the Darth Vader of bad endorsements.
Regretfully, one of my favorite papers while I grew up and in my early adult years has increase their editorial value through their endorsement of Obama. Regretfully, because I don't share the total views, but not because I disagree with their handling of the endorsement. I favor a McCain presidency, and I will stay that well after Nov. 4, 2008, no matter what the election results. That is being sincere, as opposed to being covertly biased.
To the Orl Sent: I hope you're wrong today, but come the morning Nov. 5, or whenever the election is finally decided, I will certainly be more willing to look to your pages than those of the Miami Herald.
As the primary season began, the candidate who seemed best qualified to be that leader was Republican John McCain. But Mr. McCain then was a different candidate from the one before us now. He has abandoned positions we admired. He has reacted inconsistently, even haphazardly, to events. In making the most important decision of his campaign, he showed shockingly poor judgment.Welcome "back," Orlando Sentinel. Your words in favor of Obama are complimentary without being sycophantic, your endorsement is sensible. Your move away from McCain, in my thinking, is not practical or prudent, or taking in the big picture, but it is not idiotic.
In contrast to Mr. McCain, Democrat Barack Obama has exceeded our expectations during this campaign. He has demonstrated sound judgment and grace under pressure. Because we are now more confident in his ability to steer America through the rough waters ahead, the Orlando Sentinel is endorsing Barack Obama for president.
In this election period, "it is not idiotic" is nearly the highest compliment I can offer a newspaper's editorial staff regarding an endorsement. If the Miami Herald is any example, it is a wasteland out there. Not only does our politics need to change, but much about our mainstream media needs to as well.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)