MyFoxPhilly

Sure, India is half a world away. It's easy to dismiss these attacks as random or unexpected. But India has had a shooting war with Pakistan along the border for decades. Both sides have nuclear capability. And the Hindu majority in India is getting tired of turning the other cheek. You may not be aware of this, but during the Partition, all Hindus in Pakistan were forcefully returned to India and all Muslims were forced to go to Pakistan even if they were Indian natives. The United States has increased their ties with India as the largest democracy in the region. But we also have ties to Pakistan. Pakistan has used these alliances to bolster their international status, but in reality, the Pakistani government has and can do little to force the tribal regions into compliance. Add the general acceptance of radical madrassas as the education of choice for lower income boys and you have a potential serious incident in the making.

So what is change? We haven't had a major attack on American soil since 9/11. The government has lists of attempted espionage and in the meantime, Americans complain about having to go through security checks at airports. We've been living in a relative dream. So what happens when January 20 rolls around and the ultra-liberals start embracing the systematic dismantling of the security networks as they did during the Clinton years? Will change mean that we have to live like the Brits during their rows with the IRA-reporting explosions and mayhem as a matter of daily business? Folks, no matter who you voted for, we all have a big stake in the outcome. Some of you had better start looking around in this world, because the factions of radical Islamists doesn't include negotiation .
Story Here

There have been countless queries of what would Jesus, Ghandi, and other do in various ethical situations. I think in this day and age what we need more in Washington is a true "statesman>" And by that I mean that we need someone who is willing to rise above the party biases and make moves towards truly creating changes in the economic environment that will benefit everyone. And that is not to say a socialist view will make the cut. In regards to the Big Three automakers, this problem is especially vexing. By allowing them to go bankrupt, the nation risks allowing hundreds, perhaps thousands, of smaller suppliers and their companies to go belly up. Most large corporations have enough hard cash and materials that they can sell their way out of bankruptcy. Not so with small manufacturers, specialty suppliers or mom and pop companies that do contract work. So it's not so easy to simply let the Big Three slide. On the other hand, it is foolish to reward bad business practices to be rewarded. The idea that CEO's, higher administration and corporate boards should still make out like bandits in spite of their failure to achieve is the antithesis of what free enterprise is about. That's the one thing that liberals don't seem to grasp-freedom allows you permission to succeed or fail on your own recognizance. It is also problematic that the domestic auto industry has been plagued by the two pronged attack of expensive union contracts and burdensome legal demands and intervention created by the government. This has almost nationalized the auto industry without papers.

So what do we do?
First, let them go bankrupt. A wise executive would be on the phone to the heads of Nissan, Honda and Toyota talking about the opportunity to buy into the American market with a set American profile. Like it or not, there are still folks who are born into Chevy or Ford families. Create the situation where Congress butts out and allows the market to work. As the value of GM, Ford and Chrysler stock dips, help these other manufacturers to see this as a chance to broaden their market with already recognizable brands. Hopefully both President Bush and PE Obama are currently doing this behind the scenes.
By allowing this bankruptcy to proceed, this would negate overpriced American union contracts that have made American cars too costly for their reliability. When Honda can get higher quality for $42 per hour per employee cost while GM stumbles with $71 per hour per employee cost then there is something wrong with the system. Let this streamline and make American auto manufacturers return to their primary status as car makers. This would also cause some overpaid top brass to move onto other lines of business. A bankrupt company can't provide golden parachutes before they pay bills, so that would solve the bloodletting that some CEO's seem to do before they leave.

There is no good way to do this. Frankly, you shouldn't prop up support for products that aren't in demand. That is what we have been doing with corn via ethanol and with cars via bailouts. While there is not a good solution, someone has to be willing to make the hard decision to allow the markets to work. There's a reason why we don't have many farriers and wheelwrights anymore-their services aren't in demand. So why should taxpayers support companies who are too bloated and overcontrolled to make the moves they need to make in order to be profitable? This won't be popular with unions. It won't be popular on Wall Street, but if this truly is a "global economy" as the pundits claim, then it's time to really let it work. and believe me, I say this as someone who has a husband who is job hunting. This isn't a good situation. But I don't see throwing more money at it as being a win-win either.

From the change.gov website:
"When I first learned of Barack Obama, I was encouraged by his thoughts [on] ending the power of lobbyists and the negative effect of the revolving door on the White House. I'd like to see an agenda that focuses on promoting transparency and getting people into government who sincerely want to serve the interests of the nation over their own careers."
From the AP Wire
WASHINGTON - Aides to President-elect Obama, who said lobbyists would not work in his White House, said Tuesday that lobbyists could serve in his transition so long as their activities do not involve areas of policy they have tried to influence in the past year.

So boys and girls, is this "change" we can believe in or is this the same old thing all over again? Hey, I am in agreement with the original statement. The "revolving door" of financial aid and interference by lobbyists has to go-it has and is crippling our government. But what does that mean? Does it mean that lobbyists should not be involved at all or that they can be involved when it in the best interest of the executive branch and Congress? Once again we are confronted by a president who says one thing and does another. The media and DNC were all over the Republicans when this happened, so why the deafening silence now? And this is just another example of some people not knowing what the definition of is, is. People, at some point you are going to look in the mirror and know you have been had. And it's going to be a sadder but wiser voter who staggers to the line in 2010.

So here we are after an historic election. Many people decided to make it historic as is their right. But what is troubling is the media's unevenness and flat out unwillingness to give Americans all of the news. There are many different ways to lie, but one of the most effective is to just give part of the truth. The media had no rules or limits on their dissection of Palin, McCain, their families, their histories and even items covered by privacy laws. But maybe that is the role of media. Do you feel that Pres. Elect Obama had the same sort of analysis of his history, his family or his associates? Or instead, did the media choose to build up this candidate, now president elect, in order to make Americans do something that they felt was right for the country, no matter what? There's a certain smugness and self-congratulatory nature of the media. And paired with that are some lingering doubts which only now, a week after the election, are coming into play. There are concerns that Pres. Elect Obama views himself as the reincarnation of FDR, but in doing so he only sees the social programs wrought by New Dealers, not the unnecessary prolonging of the Depression through a procession of taxes that removed working capital from the system to the detriment of workers across the board. I am extremely concerned because there seems to be no end in sight. And while in a crisis one would hope an incoming executive would seek out those people who were innovative and who knew how to implement change REGARDLESS OF THEIR PARTY AFFILIATION, he has loaded his potential cabinet and panel of economic experts with more of the same people that have sought handouts from government for decades. Read on and see what can happen if someone sacrifices jobs for international payouts and political paybacks. Is it really a good idea to tax Americans more and then pay that money out in the form of bribery or tribute to other nations? Does it make sense to scuttle our own economy at all costs?
Story here

Excerpt:
"...With one hand the New Dealers gave, spending to stimulate the economy. In fact, they put through the same kinds of infrastructure projects that Obama and congressional Democrats are considering today.

With the other hand the New Dealers took away, by raising tax rates -- just as the new president and Congress are likely to do in 2009.

Especially damaging to the prospects of recovery were the heavy levies of the second half of the 1930s, which, as Krugman points out, were key in ``precipitating an economic relapse that drove unemployment back into the double digits.'' President Franklin D. Roosevelt specialized in persecuting the rich via taxes, telling the upper class, point blank, that they had ``met their master...

'...Laffer, Moore and Tanous chart the correlation between tax cuts and growth in other countries as well. In Ireland, unemployment began to drop following cuts in the personal income tax. It rose again before falling dramatically as the Irish government cut capital-gains taxes and then corporate taxes.

It's worth noting that Ireland was enduring Depression-level rates of unemployment -- 16 percent to 17 percent -- at the outset of its tax experiment and managed to get down to the five- percent range even as the nation found its way to a budget surplus.."

'

Is this what we have to look forward to? Even the most strident of liberal supporters should be highly disturbed at how our freedom of speech is being taken away. As someone who teaches art, expression is important. This is just one step on that slippery slope. "Truth Squads", "Broadcast Councils"-what more indications do you need that our freedoms are under assault?

Leave it to the Brits to say what they think. Their political process is far more pointed and raucous and when it comes to saying what they think, they aren't nearly as cowed as Americans seem to be during this election. Of course, part of that is because the majority of us like to be liked. We don't like doing mean things to people. And Americans like to be viewed as fair. So the blanket accusations from the Left that a vote for a conservative was racism made many people fearful about expressing their political doubts and perhaps even swayed the election. But here come the Brits. Unlike their EU counterparts, they've seen this Messiah complex before. And as a wise older sister, they are giving us fair warning that who we have elected may not be exactly what many people thought they were getting.
Story here
And as for what some people think they will receive courtesy of the new president follows:

By the way..that phrase is directly from this old James Cagney movie just in case you were wondering...

The election is over and it pretty much turned out as the media said it would. So now I wonder-
-Will the media continue to simply fawn over every word from the White House, or will they be forced at some point to ask the hard questions?
-Will Joe Biden manage to make it through one term? He looks like a used car salesman to me. I am just not sure he can handle the job.
-Now that numbers will be down for readership and viewership, will the media shrink along with the rest of economy?
-Will the voter population get tired of the media controlling the message? It's become fairly clear that many people simply do not read or listen to the news. Instead they get a buffet of filtered news from their internet sources. If the Fairness Doctrine comes into play, can the Republicans use that to force websites such as The Daily Kos or Huffington to admit their egregious lies?
-While I understand this is a great and memorable day for many African Americans, I could really do without Bob Ray Sanders and John Wiley Price. Both of them, who have whines and threatened everyone that we must sympathize and "understand" the views of those who oppose us, seem ready to relegate those of us who simply could not agree with Obama's political stands to the general heading of racist. I am tired of it. I teach and deal with children and people from a wide range of backgrounds. I was raised to treat EVERYONE with courtesy and kindness. Yet because I fear that my husband's company may close due to corporate taxation and worry that what little we have in retirement accounts will be lost to some government programs to pay money to people who have either wasted their own money or not paid into the system-I am called racist. I am tired of it. I know that there were many many wonderful representatives of the African American community that could have been called upon to comment. The choice of these two men and the comments they spewed forth makes me seriously wonder at what President Obama means by "uniting America".

As it is, I will still stay conservative. If President Obama can do what he says and not destroy us, then maybe destiny was prudent. But I also know his supporters are impatient and I truly think if he doesn't make things happen magically and soon, they will drop support.

I was thinking about the elections and how having a Democrat in the White House along with Democrat control of the Congress could alter the landscape politically. And strangely enough, my mind wandered back to a Dr. Suess classic. Knowing his personal views, I am sure he's rolling in his grave over my musings, but here's what I came up with.
IF, Barak Obama wins the election, and
IF the Congress succeeds in the tightened oversight of the airwaves via local boards that are politically appointed or elected, and
IF conservatives lose a way to publicly air their greivances
DOES THAT MEAN CONSERVATISM IS GONE?

No.
It can come without airwaves, without handpicked auditors and arbitrators of what is worthy of airing. It can come without the media, without the glitz of Eurotrash celebrities who push their agendas onto the backs of working people. It can come without shallow nominees who provide soundbite candidacy and not much more. Because Conservatism, capital C, has to do with saving, preserving and protecting our way of life. It is something that even the most radical among us is loathe to change, because once you have opened that can of worms, you end up having to buy a larger can. So don't be downhearted and don't doubt that this wheel of life will surely turn. And things may change faster than anyone realizes or predicts. Because although you may change programs, taxes, and faces, people do not change on their own. They change because of things going on within. And if you don't believe that, then you can read the experiences of any of several political captives to see that while their captors continued to press to control their thoughts, in our own minds, no matter where we are, we are still free to dream. Keep hope alive, no matter what tomorrow brings.

Neither candidate has produced much in the way of substance in regards to how they would handle various situations which are literally just over the horizon. While many cite McCain as a maverick, it is Obama's willingness to sit down with people who have claimed to hate us that is more of a problem. Israelis are looking to this election in fear because the media has been so dazzled by the American election that they have failed to note a wide array of provocative actions, especially on the part of Hamas in Palestine. Because of this, few Americans are aware that the ceasefire has never really been adhered to by Hamas and that active smuggling, spying and other terror operations are ongoing against the Israelis at the behest of Hamas. Remember, Obama is the candidate who simply wanted to sit down with the likes of Kim Jong-Il and Ahmadinejad and simply talk. Unfortunately, not all cultures are like western cultures. By some, capitulation or negotiation is seen as weakness. Vote wisely.
Story here
Here's what's going on in Israel:
"...The defense establishment thwarted an attempt to smuggle military textile goods to the Hamas organization in the Gaza Strip on Monday.
Defense Ministry administration workers were surprised to discover the equipment under a surface during a routine check of a truck carrying humanitarian aid to the Strip through the Kerem Shalom crossing. The goods included coats, sweaters, hats, and camouflage fatigues.

Defense establishment officials said the equipment seized was not permitted to enter Gaza.

"There is no reason why we should allow Hamas to bring in such equipment at the expense of humanitarian aid intended for the Palestinian population. We are now trying to investigate who sent this equipment.

"Hamas doesn't care about hurting the Palestinian population in order to promote its own interests. They choose to use the permits provided by Israel for the entry of humanitarian equipment for the organization's own needs," a security source said.

I came across this blog at Chicagoboyz. It's an interesting and informative observation on why our economy is more consumption oriented than production oriented. It also makes some astute observations on why this happened and who affected the policies that created this climate change in America. Well worth the read. By the way, this particular blogsite is one that offers some no frills explanations about all things financial and economic.

Chicagoboyz

Excerpt"

...In 1950, America produced 51% of the GNP for entire world. Of that production, roughly 70% took place in the eight states surrounding the Great Lakes: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York.

The productive capability of this small area of earth staggers the imagination. Virtually everything that rebuilt the industrial bases of Europe and Japan came from those eight states. Cars, planes, electronics, machine tools, consumer goods, generators, concrete - any conceivable item manufactured by industrial humanity poured out this tiny region and enriched the world. The region shone with widespread prosperity. People migrated from the south and west to work in these herculean engines of industry.

The wealth, power and economic dominance of the region at the time cannot be overstated. Nothing like it has existed in human history.

Yet, a mere 30 years later, by 1980, we called that area the “rustbelt” and it became synonymous with joblessness, collapsing cities, high crime, failing schools and general hopelessness.

What the hell happened?..."

They claim he's not a socialist. But he hangs out with socialists, was mentored by socialists and even speaks of actions that would force socialist behavior on our nation. In his own words....

So listen to this. Go ahead-tell me that I "misunderstood" or that I am taking things "out of context." Anyway you want to cook it up, this is a socialist.

Maybe it's me, but I've noticed a few stories where the media seems to be second guessing their election of Barak Obama to the presidency. First we have Mike Malone's opinion that some folks in the media have allowed their objectivity to be overwhelmed by the celebrity status of Senator Obama. Others have opined that maybe, just maybe, they have been less than circumspect in asking real questions and doing the real investigation on both candidates that have dwelt far more on style than they have substance. Is it possible that with the very real spector of an Obama presidency that the media is beginning to wonder what sort of Frankenstein's monster they have built?

Sadly, it's too late to do much about it. The whispering campaigns that were reported as factual have far more impact than the retractions printed on the inside columns of the second page. The media has not done it's job. They have let slide observations that should have been made months ago. I am sure Hillary is sitting in her office banging her head against the wall wondering how the media managed to create this "perfect storm." They ignored the basic tenets of journalism which is to report the facts, the When, the Where, the What, the Who and the Why. Instead they became fans. They didn't do their jobs. They didn't tell the American public what was really happening. Instead they bought into the fantasy and sold it to America.

Now they are worried. Because they didn't do their jobs, now the realities of Obama's plans for America are coming out. And they aren't things that will do well according to many economists, corporations and others. Why should you care what corporations think? Because they pay you. And if they can't make a profit because they are burdened with more taxes, they will STOP paying you. This can all go away. And if and when it does, the first people we can blame (after the lawyers) is the media. And that is why there is an undercover wave of serious backpedaling by writers experienced enough to read the writing on the wall.
Story One-Journalists' Roundtable
"...CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Look, I think that's the point. The mainstream media, it has gone beyond the point of a lack of curiosity, a lack of questions, a lack of probing into Obama's associations in the past.

It's that it has dropped a curtain over these associations, and implied or claimed openly as it said in the editorial page of "The New York Times" that to probe into them, to question them, and to bring them up is to engage in a form of racism.."

Story Two-What Real Reporters (Should)Do

"...But it seems, over and over again, the media has simply deferred to the Obama version of reality. This is especially true on his own record and personal history. Obama says he’s a reformer, so no use asking him why he didn’t challenge the Daley machine at any point. He says he couldn’t possibly support infanticide, so there’s no point of taking him through the specifics of his votes on the Born Alive Infants legislation. He claims his relationship with Bill Ayers was slight, so there’s no reason to ask him about the conversations they might have had on “redistributive change” or about Ayers’ terrorist activities or about the groups which they funded together through the Woods Fund. Obama’s such a post-partisan guy there really isn’t any point grilling him as to how he could be unaware of Reverend Wright’s rhetoric..."

Story Three-Objectivity Loses

"...Former New York Times [NYT] columnist and veteran newspaperman Michael Malone knows it.

“I’ve begun - for the first time in my adult life - to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living,” he said..."

At the risk of violating union rules, allow me to do a bit of reporting: A new study by the Pew Research Center found that, while 71 percent of Obama’s recent media coverage has been “positive” or “neutral,” almost 60 percent of McCain’s coverage over the same period has been “decidedly negative.”

And how much positive coverage did the media give McCain? Fourteen percent.

The American people have figured this out..."

Story Four-Axis of Bias

"...But the Times apparently doesn't think Americans are entitled to see Obama praising a terrorist mouthpiece before they decide whether to make him president for four years. Similarly, major news outlets buried this week's story of Obama calling for "major redistributive change" in a newly discovered 2001 radio interview.

But if you think we've got an unholy alliance between liberal Democrats in Washington and this country's media elite now, just watch what happens if Obama becomes president with a Democratic Congress — especially if it features a filibuster-proof Senate..."

I think that the media is slowing coming to realize that they have backed someone who is only their friend so long as he gets to control the message. We used to have this little thing we called "Freedom of Speech." But in too many ways for me to name, I think those rights are being sundered for a unknown who may or may not have the protection of our nation in mind.

Maybe it's me, but I've noticed a few stories where the media seems to be second guessing their election of Barak Obama to the presidency. First we have Mike Malone's opinion that some folks in the media have allowed their objectivity to be overwhelmed by the celebrity status of Senator Obama. Others have opined that maybe, just maybe, they have been less than circumspect in asking real questions and doing the real investigation on both candidates that have dwelt far more on style than they have substance. Is it possible that with the very real spector of an Obama presidency that the media is beginning to wonder what sort of Frankenstein's monster they have built?

Sadly, it's too late to do much about it. The whispering campaigns that were reported as factual have far more impact than the retractions printed on the inside columns of the second page. The media has not done it's job. They have let slide observations that should have been made months ago. I am sure Hillary is sitting in her office banging her head against the wall wondering how the media managed to create this "perfect storm." They ignored the basic tenets of journalism which is to report the facts, the When, the Where, the What, the Who and the Why. Instead they became fans. They didn't do their jobs. They didn't tell the American public what was really happening. Instead they bought into the fantasy and sold it to America.

Now they are worried. Because they didn't do their jobs, now the realities of Obama's plans for America are coming out. And they aren't things that will do well according to many economists, corporations and others. Why should you care what corporations think? Because they pay you. And if they can't make a profit because they are burdened with more taxes, they will STOP paying you. This can all go away. And if and when it does, the first people we can blame (after the lawyers) is the media. And that is why there is an undercover wave of serious backpedaling by writers experienced enough to read the writing on the wall.
Story One-Journalists' Roundtable
"...CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Look, I think that's the point. The mainstream media, it has gone beyond the point of a lack of curiosity, a lack of questions, a lack of probing into Obama's associations in the past.

It's that it has dropped a curtain over these associations, and implied or claimed openly as it said in the editorial page of "The New York Times" that to probe into them, to question them, and to bring them up is to engage in a form of racism.."

Story Two-What Real Reporters (Should)Do

"...But it seems, over and over again, the media has simply deferred to the Obama version of reality. This is especially true on his own record and personal history. Obama says he’s a reformer, so no use asking him why he didn’t challenge the Daley machine at any point. He says he couldn’t possibly support infanticide, so there’s no point of taking him through the specifics of his votes on the Born Alive Infants legislation. He claims his relationship with Bill Ayers was slight, so there’s no reason to ask him about the conversations they might have had on “redistributive change” or about Ayers’ terrorist activities or about the groups which they funded together through the Woods Fund. Obama’s such a post-partisan guy there really isn’t any point grilling him as to how he could be unaware of Reverend Wright’s rhetoric..."

Story Three-Objectivity Loses

"...Former New York Times [NYT] columnist and veteran newspaperman Michael Malone knows it.

“I’ve begun - for the first time in my adult life - to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living,” he said..."

At the risk of violating union rules, allow me to do a bit of reporting: A new study by the Pew Research Center found that, while 71 percent of Obama’s recent media coverage has been “positive” or “neutral,” almost 60 percent of McCain’s coverage over the same period has been “decidedly negative.”

And how much positive coverage did the media give McCain? Fourteen percent.

The American people have figured this out..."

Story Four-Axis of Bias

"...But the Times apparently doesn't think Americans are entitled to see Obama praising a terrorist mouthpiece before they decide whether to make him president for four years. Similarly, major news outlets buried this week's story of Obama calling for "major redistributive change" in a newly discovered 2001 radio interview.

But if you think we've got an unholy alliance between liberal Democrats in Washington and this country's media elite now, just watch what happens if Obama becomes president with a Democratic Congress — especially if it features a filibuster-proof Senate..."

I think that the media is slowing coming to realize that they have backed someone who is only their friend so long as he gets to control the message. We used to have this little thing we called "Freedom of Speech." But in too many ways for me to name, I think those rights are being sundered for a unknown who may or may not have the protection of our nation in mind.

Maybe it's me, but I've noticed a few stories where the media seems to be second guessing their election of Barak Obama to the presidency. First we have Mike Malone's opinion that some folks in the media have allowed their objectivity to be overwhelmed by the celebrity status of Senator Obama. Others have opined that maybe, just maybe, they have been less than circumspect in asking real questions and doing the real investigation on both candidates that have dwelt far more on style than they have substance. Is it possible that with the very real spector of an Obama presidency that the media is beginning to wonder what sort of Frankenstein's monster they have built?

Sadly, it's too late to do much about it. The whispering campaigns that were reported as factual have far more impact than the retractions printed on the inside columns of the second page. The media has not done it's job. They have let slide observations that should have been made months ago. I am sure Hillary is sitting in her office banging her head against the wall wondering how the media managed to create this "perfect storm." They ignored the basic tenets of journalism which is to report the facts, the When, the Where, the What, the Who and the Why. Instead they became fans. They didn't do their jobs. They didn't tell the American public what was really happening. Instead they bought into the fantasy and sold it to America.

Now they are worried. Because they didn't do their jobs, now the realities of Obama's plans for America are coming out. And they aren't things that will do well according to many economists, corporations and others. Why should you care what corporations think? Because they pay you. And if they can't make a profit because they are burdened with more taxes, they will STOP paying you. This can all go away. And if and when it does, the first people we can blame (after the lawyers) is the media. And that is why there is an undercover wave of serious backpedaling by writers experienced enough to read the writing on the wall.
Story One-Journalists' Roundtable
"...CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Look, I think that's the point. The mainstream media, it has gone beyond the point of a lack of curiosity, a lack of questions, a lack of probing into Obama's associations in the past.

It's that it has dropped a curtain over these associations, and implied or claimed openly as it said in the editorial page of "The New York Times" that to probe into them, to question them, and to bring them up is to engage in a form of racism.."

Story Two-What Real Reporters (Should)Do

"...But it seems, over and over again, the media has simply deferred to the Obama version of reality. This is especially true on his own record and personal history. Obama says he’s a reformer, so no use asking him why he didn’t challenge the Daley machine at any point. He says he couldn’t possibly support infanticide, so there’s no point of taking him through the specifics of his votes on the Born Alive Infants legislation. He claims his relationship with Bill Ayers was slight, so there’s no reason to ask him about the conversations they might have had on “redistributive change” or about Ayers’ terrorist activities or about the groups which they funded together through the Woods Fund. Obama’s such a post-partisan guy there really isn’t any point grilling him as to how he could be unaware of Reverend Wright’s rhetoric..."

Story Three-Objectivity Loses

"...Former New York Times [NYT] columnist and veteran newspaperman Michael Malone knows it.

“I’ve begun - for the first time in my adult life - to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living,” he said..."

At the risk of violating union rules, allow me to do a bit of reporting: A new study by the Pew Research Center found that, while 71 percent of Obama’s recent media coverage has been “positive” or “neutral,” almost 60 percent of McCain’s coverage over the same period has been “decidedly negative.”

And how much positive coverage did the media give McCain? Fourteen percent.

The American people have figured this out..."

Story Four-Axis of Bias

"...But the Times apparently doesn't think Americans are entitled to see Obama praising a terrorist mouthpiece before they decide whether to make him president for four years. Similarly, major news outlets buried this week's story of Obama calling for "major redistributive change" in a newly discovered 2001 radio interview.

But if you think we've got an unholy alliance between liberal Democrats in Washington and this country's media elite now, just watch what happens if Obama becomes president with a Democratic Congress — especially if it features a filibuster-proof Senate..."

I think that the media is slowing coming to realize that they have backed someone who is only their friend so long as he gets to control the message. We used to have this little thing we called "Freedom of Speech." But in too many ways for me to name, I think those rights are being sundered for a unknown who may or may not have the protection of our nation in mind.

TexasTruBlu's Fortress of Solitude

TexasTruBlu

Inside Fox:
Hot List About Us Good Day TV Listings Politics