A political random thought

[RalphyS]

Yes, those damned liberal media, they are so biased for Obama, luckily we still have good old conservative Faux News without those doubled standards:
Double Standards?

[eusebioCBR]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Yes, those damned liberal media, they are so biased for Obama, luckily we still have good old conservative Faux News without those doubled standards:
Double Standards?

Basically anything other than the antiquated network news liberal version of anything is a lie. Bullshit! I will question AP, NBC, CBS, CNBC, CNN, and any other liberal propaganda machine.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by eusebioCBR)

Basically anything other than the antiquated network news liberal version of anything is a lie. Bullshit! I will question AP, NBC, CBS, CNBC, CNN, and any other liberal propaganda machine.

Basically I find it just sad that Americans cannot watch, as it seems, an unbiased newscast, I don't know enough of the American media to know whether one station or another is liberal or conservative, what I do see now and then is reports of the right-wing-extreme Fox News.

News should be about facts on not a propaganda machine for either side.

[eusebioCBR]

Your mention of Fox news is my point. All news sources outside of the establishment are ridiculed. I'm not an advocate for Fox, but the information I get from their reporting is a little different from all the other major networks. You can tune into every other major network news on any given evening and get the same perspective reporting on NBC,CBS,ABC,CNN...... I've done plenty of my own research on the events they report and have found that they often omit information to shape public opinion.

[RalphyS]

More about the state of US-media:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-m..._b_124772.html

What I don't understand is, all of the networks are in the hands of major corporations, so what is their advantage in being liberal?

[eusebioCBR]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

More about the state of US-media:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-m..._b_124772.html

What I don't understand is, all of the networks are in the hands of major corporations, so what is their advantage in being liberal?

The corporate question. The news is a business and business is about profit. The news can say whatever it wants as long as the share holders are pleased.
The liberal question. Educated elitist politicians and journalists share a misguided notion that it is their noble duty to save the uneducated "unwashed" masses from themselves. The media shares their ideals and they want a share of the power.

[metalchris25]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Basically I find it just sad that Americans cannot watch, as it seems, an unbiased newscast, I don't know enough of the American media to know whether one station or another is liberal or conservative, what I do see now and then is reports of the right-wing-extreme Fox News.

News should be about facts on not a propaganda machine for either side.

You are right. I have found the BBC to be great though.

[eusebioCBR]

The BBC is well worth watching.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by eusebioCBR)

The liberal question. Educated elitist politicians and journalists share a misguided notion that it is their noble duty to save the uneducated "unwashed" masses from themselves. The media shares their ideals and they want a share of the power.

Just to pick up on this, first of all I never understood the negative connotation that Americans have given the word "liberal", mostly pre-empted by "bleeding heart". When I learned about liberalism in history class on school, I was totally for it and if you read the definition on wikipedia, I don't see what anyone could have against that:

Quote:

Liberalism is a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment.

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2] All liberals — as well as some adherents of other political ideologies — support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[3]

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Social progressivism, the belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain unchangeable and inviolable rights. Different schools of liberalism are based on different conceptions of human rights, but there are some rights that all liberals support to some extent, including rights to life, liberty, and property.

I do find individual liberty one of the most important things we achieved as humans throughout history. I do consider myself a liberal as defined above.

Than on a second note, the disparagement with which you name the "uneducated unwashed masses". I suppose it's allright for you yourself to have a life of fortune, while others may starve. I am not a communist, not even a socialist, but I do feel every human being has the responsibility to try and decrease suffering in the world to a bare minimum. Ofcourse everybody able is also responsible to work for his living etcetera, but there are those less fortunate in the world or in our own countries, who may have not the earning capacity, physically or mentally, to live minimally decent life and I do feel that the government should look out for these weakest elements in our society. I am willing to pay taxes for that and also for the possibility that I some day may not be able to fend for myself, due to circumstances, god forbid (manor of speaking as you know I'm atheist).

This is what grosses me out mostly about conservatives/republicans, it's always me, me, me and let the rest of the world rot. And it's not only economically, abortion and gay marriage should be forbidden, because they (or if you like it better their idea of a god) forbids it, it doesn't matter what others think about it. The idea of "you are for or against us", I always think there are more colours than black and white, I could go on, but I've rambled enough.

[eusebioCBR]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Just to pick up on this, first of all I never understood the negative connotation that Americans have given the word "liberal", mostly pre-empted by "bleeding heart". When I learned about liberalism in history class on school, I was totally for it and if you read the definition on wikipedia, I don't see what anyone could have against that:



I do find individual liberty one of the most important things we achieved as humans throughout history. I do consider myself a liberal as defined above.

Than on a second note, the disparagement with which you name the "uneducated unwashed masses". I suppose it's allright for you yourself to have a life of fortune, while others may starve. I am not a communist, not even a socialist, but I do feel every human being has the responsibility to try and decrease suffering in the world to a bare minimum. Ofcourse everybody able is also responsible to work for his living etcetera, but there are those less fortunate in the world or in our own countries, who may have not the earning capacity, physically or mentally, to live minimally decent life and I do feel that the government should look out for these weakest elements in our society. I am willing to pay taxes for that and also for the possibility that I some day may not be able to fend for myself, due to circumstances, god forbid (manor of speaking as you know I'm atheist).

This is what grosses me out mostly about conservatives/republicans, it's always me, me, me and let the rest of the world rot. And it's not only economically, abortion and gay marriage should be forbidden, because they (or if you like it better their idea of a god) forbids it, it doesn't matter what others think about it. The idea of "you are for or against us", I always think there are more colours than black and white, I could go on, but I've rambled enough.

I grew up in a home with a combined income of about fifteen thousand dollars a year. That's not a whole lot of money in America during the seventies and eighties. Actually my first home was trailer or a caravan. Both of my parents dropped out of school and spent most of their lives as seasonal agriculture laborers. I have been the recipient of government assistance and I have experienced the sort of redicule and prejudice from others who had the "life of fortune" you suggest I speak from. I do understand need so there is no need imply that not being liberal is equal to having no sympathy and believing in no assistance for anyone.

I believe the main difference between both ideals in America is the qeustion of more or less government. I see it as the choice between the Democrats and European democracy or the Republicans being the most electable party that will represent and defend my CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. There's a whole lot more but time isn't on my side.

[RalphyS]

I guess that is the real difference between the both of us, you care about more or less government, I care about good or bad government, if it's good I don't care how much of it there is, if it's bad no government is too much government.

I would like to know how the democrats threaten your constitutional republic?

[eusebioCBR]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

I guess that is the real difference between the both of us, you care about more or less government, I care about good or bad government, if it's good I don't care how much of it there is, if it's bad no government is too much government.

I would like to know how the democrats threaten your constitutional republic?

Socialism and no I'm not willing to trade LIBERTY for comfort.

[RalphyS]

As stated before the democrats are a far cry away from socialism and by the way where do you think liberalism got its name from, it is derived from liberty, maybe some education wouldn't be that bad

[eusebioCBR]

^Alright insult my intelligence. That was clever and quite an accomplishment.

I'm a Libertarian -

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise SOLE DOMINION over their own lives and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

I know where I stand and why. I'm satisfied with that. I know where you stand and I respect that. You know where I stand and you have to challenge me. Is your "open mind" so insecure that you have to attack what you don't agree with.
You're a waste of my time.

[eusebioCBR]

It's unfortunate the media is too preoccupied with destroying Gov. Palin to investigate this.

Co-Workers: Obama Inflated His Resume
It has been noted by Charles Krauthammer and others that very few people have stepped forward to vouch for Barack Obama.

Indeed, there would seem to be an especially conspicuous absence of witnesses to the years after graduated from Columbia and before he moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer.

Well, it turns out that one of his co-workers, Dan Armstrong, has in fact written about Mr. Obama during those days. And while he is an admitted fan of Obama’s, he claims that he has inflated his resume considerably.

Others who worked with Obama at Business International have subsequently chimed in.

First, Mr. Obama’s version as presented in from Dreams From My Father, pp 55-6:

CHAPTER SEVEN

… And so, in the months leading up to graduation, I wrote to every civil rights organization I could think of, to any black elected official in the country with a progressive agenda, to neighborhood councils and tenant rights groups. When no one wrote back, I wasn’t discouraged. I decided to find more conventional work for a year, to pay off my student loans and maybe even save a little bit. I would need the money later, I told myself. Organizers didn’t make any money; their poverty was proof of their integrity.

Eventually a consulting house to multinational corporations agreed to hire me as a research assistant. Like a spy behind enemy lines, I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal, checking the Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages from across the globe. As far as I could tell I was the only black man in the company, a source of shame for me but a source of considerable pride for the company’s secretarial pool. They treated me like a son, those black ladies; they told me how they expected me to run the company one day…

Nevertheless, as the months passed, I felt the idea of becoming an organizer slipping away from me. The company promoted me to the position of financial writer. I had my own office, my own secretary, money in the bank. Sometimes, coming out of an interview with Japanese financiers or German bond traders, I would catch my reflection in the elevator doors-see myself in a suit and tie, a briefcase in my hand-and for a split second I would imagine myself as a captain of industry, barking out orders, closing the deal, before I remembered who it was that I had told myself I wanted to be and felt pangs of guilt for my lack of resolve.

Then one day, as I sat down at my computer to write an article on interest-rate swaps, something unexpected happened. Auma called. I had never met this half sister; we had written only intermittently…

[A] few months after Auma called, I turned in my resignation at the consulting firm and began looking in earnest for an organizing job…

We are supposed to believe that “something happened” and the rest is history.

Here, however, is a somewhat different perspective on Obama’s halcyon days as a “spy behind enemy lines,” from a site called Analyze This:

Barack Obama Embellishes His Resume
July 9th, 2005

[by Dan Armstrong]

Don’t get me wrong - I’m a big fan of Barack Obama, the Illinois freshman senator and hot young Democratic Party star. But after reading his autobiography, I have to say that Barack engages in some serious exaggeration when he describes a job that he held in the mid-1980s. I know because I sat down the hall from him, in the same department, and worked closely with his boss. I can’t say I was particularly close to Barack - he was reserved and distant towards all of his co-workers - but I was probably as close to him as anyone. I certainly know what he did there, and it bears only a loose resemblance to what he wrote in his book.

Here’s Barack’s account:

Eventually a consulting house to multinational corporations agreed to hire me as a research assistant. Like a spy behind enemy lines, I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal, checking the Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages from across the globe. As far as I could tell I was the only black man in the company, a source of shame for me but a source of considerable pride for the company’s secretarial pool.

First, it wasn’t a consulting house; it was a small company that published newsletters on international business. Like most newsletter publishers, it was a bit of a sweatshop. I’m sure we all wished that we were high-priced consultants to multinational corporations. But we also enjoyed coming in at ten, wearing jeans to work, flirting with our co-workers, partying when we stayed late, and bonding over the low salaries and heavy workload.

Barack worked on one of the company’s reference publications. Each month customers got a new set of pages on business conditions in a particular country, punched to fit into a three-ring binder. Barack’s job was to get copy from the country correspondents and edit it so that it fit into a standard outline. There was probably some research involved as well, since correspondents usually don’t send exactly what you ask for, and you can’t always decipher their copy. But essentially the job was copyediting.

It’s also not true that Barack was the only black man in the company. He was the only black professional man. Fred was an African-American who worked in the mailroom with his son. My boss and I used to join them on Friday afternoons to drink beer behind the stacks of office supplies. That’s not the kind of thing that Barack would do. Like I said, he was somewhat aloof.

… as the months passed, I felt the idea of becoming an organizer slipping away from me. The company promoted me to the position of financial writer. I had my own office, my own secretary; money in the bank. Sometimes, coming out of an interview with Japanese financiers or German bond traders, I would catch my reflection in the elevator doors—see myself in a suit and tie, a briefcase in my hand—and for a split second I would imagine myself as a captain of industry, barking out orders, closing the deal, before I remembered who it was that I had told myself I wanted to be and felt pangs of guilt for my lack of resolve.

If Barack was promoted, his new job responsibilities were more of the same - rewriting other people’s copy. As far as I know, he always had a small office, and the idea that he had a secretary is laughable. Only the company president had a secretary. Barack never left the office, never wore a tie, and had neither reason nor opportunity to interview Japanese financiers or German bond traders.

Then one day, as I sat down at my computer to write an article on interest-rate swaps, something unexpected happened…. I had never met this half sister; we had written only intermittently. …[several pages on his suffering half-sister] …a few months after Auma called, I turned in my resignation at the consulting firm and began looking in earnest for an organizing job.

What Barack means here is that he got copy from a correspondent who didn’t understand interest rate swaps, and he was trying to make sense out of it.

All of Barack’s embellishment serves a larger narrative purpose: to retell the story of the Christ’s temptation. The young, idealistic, would-be community organizer gets a nice suit, joins a consulting house, starts hanging out with investment bankers, and barely escapes moving into the big mansion with the white folks. Luckily, an angel calls, awakens his conscience, and helps him choose instead to fight for the people.

Like I said, I’m a fan. His famous keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention moved me to tears. The Democrats - not to mention America - need a mixed-race spokesperson who can connect to both urban blacks and rural whites, who has the credibility to challenge the status quo on issues ranging from misogynistic rap to unfair school funding.

And yet I’m disappointed. Barack’s story may be true, but many of the facts are not. His larger narrative purpose requires him to embellish his role. I don’t buy it. Just as I can’t be inspired by Steve Jobs now that I know how dishonest he is, I can’t listen uncritically to Barack Obama now that I know he’s willing to bend the facts to his purpose.

Once, when I applied for a marketing job at a big accounting firm, my then-supervisor called HR to say that I had exaggerated something on my resume. I didn’t agree, but I also didn’t get the job. But when Barack Obama invents facts in a book ranked No. 8 on the NY Times nonfiction list, it not only fails to be noticed but it helps elevate him into the national political pantheon.

As Mr. Armstrong suggests, if Obama would exaggerate about such things as this, what else has he exaggerated or made up out of whole cloth?

The comments to this post are also quite intriguing, such as:

Comment from Bill Millar
Time: October 30, 2007, 8:17 am

Cathy Lazere [another commentor] calls Barack self-assured? That’s putting a nice spin on it. I found him arrogant and condescending.

The thing is, I worked next to Barack nearly every day he was at Business International –- on many days angling for possession of the best Wang word processing terminal.

I had MANY discussions with Barack.

I can tell you this: even though I was an assistant editor (big doings at this “consulting firm”) and he was, well, he was doing something there, he certainly treated me like something less than an equal.

Funny thing… A journalism/political science major… Writing about finance… Pretending in his book to be an expert on interest rate swaps.

By the way, there should be no doubt as to Mr. Armstrong’s bona fides on this subject. Even the New York Times has cited him as an authority for an article on this period of Mr. Obama’s storied life.