Post 15: Disrespectful Editorials

I was reading an editorial in the LA times about President Bush a few days ago. It was really sarcastic and made fun of the President in a lot of ways. It sarcastically referred to his intelligence and was simply inappropriate since it was addressed to the president. I understand that this is the reason why they are called the editorials, but it bothers me that there are bias news papers like the LA times which even allow these kind of articles to be placed in the paper. I thought NEWS papers were supposed to report the news, not insult the president.

This article discussed the issues regarding the President and a remark that was made to him at a conference a few weeks back. The person there said that they could read his body language and he told the person that the psychology was not. In response, the author of this editorial sarcastically and arrogantly teases President Bush.

The article truly made me despise the person writing it. I am an American and when someone insults my President it really makes me angry. No matter what, he should at least be respected. It puzzles me how the people who question why parts of the world despise us and our president, are the same people that insult him.

How can we expect others to show us respect and respect our leadership when we are most disrespectful of them all? It is OK to critique the president and voice how you disagree with what is being done, but there is a fine line between doing that, and showing no respect, whatsoever for you countries leader.

Let me know what you think and if you honestly think it is OK for news papers to publish pieces that do not critique the president, but rather "bash" him.

Post 14: Talk Radio

I was trying to figure out what to blog about this week. So, I watched some more news and listened to some talk radio. All I was hearing was more stuff about the elections and more stuff about the different candidates. I have already blogged about some of that in the past and have read too many other blogs that relate to the election, so then it occurred to me to simply blog about talk radio.

I watch the news a lot, but mostly listen to talk radio. Specifically I listen to AM 790 KABC (http://www.kabc.com/home.asp). If you are ever driving and want to listen to a little political discussion, this is the channel to be listening to. If anyone is interested in listening a little through you computer, all you have to do is go to the link I gave above, make a login name, and listen to the live broadcast. Some of the people that are on throughout the day include Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Larry Elder.

Anyways, the reason why I decided to blog about talk radio, is because I really feel that it is AWESOME. I have heard some of the best points made on a variety of politically heated topics and radio also offers a lot that TV news lacks. Since the host of the show gets to determine a lot of what they talk about, there are tons of times where you can listen in and hear about something really important or absolutely baffling, that the TV news has decided not to present, for that exact reason. I guess that this all comes back to the point that it is important for all of us to make sure to get the "facts" from a variety of sources and different places. Talk Radio, especially, offers the chance for listeners to learn about things sometimes not discussed on TV and also to call in and give their input. This is a great chance to hear different sides of the argument and form your own opinion about the topic being discussed. It is not only really interesting to be listening to these topics, but also important to form those opinions.

Post 13: Cardinal Roger Michael Mahony

I was listening to talk radio on Wednesday trying to find a topic to discuss on my blog for this week. This is one of the topics that came up, and I am really glad that it did because too many people in the religious community play it down. So, the story goes that awhile back Cardinal Mahony admitted to helping out priests that were getting caught molesting people. What would happen is that people would get suspicious or catch them, and then he would simply transfer them to a different area so they could continue to practice.

This past Monday, according to the radio, Cardinal Mahony announced that this past summer, he was badly beaten by someone that was upset with him for all the priests that he was letting get away with molesting. The reason why no one knew is because he decided not to press charges because he wanted to just, "forgive them." Let’s be honest. He did not want the publicity and for the whole priest thing to come back up.

This is basically why they were talking about this on the radio (Larry Elder, 790 KABC, 3-6 pm Weekdays---GREATEST radio show). I had forgotten about this whole priest ordeal so I was really upset by it. What made me even angrier was when some poor man called in and said that he had been molested as a kid.

He said that this was the first time that he had talked about it and that not even his family knew. What made it even worse was that the priest that had done it to him 20 years ago was still practicing. I am a Christian, but this is horrible. What are we supposed to do when the holy people we are supposed to look for guidance, are being found to be molesters?

Post 12: Middle East Teacher

So here is the story: A British lady was teaching English to some little kids over in Sudan. The class had a teddy bear which was kind of the classes mascot. So, because the class is a bunch of little children and to make it fun, the teacher decided to have the class take a vote on what to name the bear. Sounds innocent, right? Apparently not. Because Mohammad is a really common name for Muslims, the bear was named after a little boy in the class named Mohammad. Now, considering the religion of this region, it would be reasonable to suggest that they might be offended...

In the United States, if parents are offended they go to the school board. In Sudan for this teachers case, if parents are offended, they go to the authorities, apparently, and demand that the teacher be executed. This is exactly what happened. Over a TEDDY BEAR being named Mohammad they demanded that the teacher be executed. Now, I can understand some being offended because Mohammad is something like the most honored prophet in their religion. This is just taking it to a whole new level though.

The teacher WAS found guilty and sentenced not to time in jail, but to be executed. Since then the sentencing has changed. Some officials first thought that it would be appropriate to take the teacher and give her 40 lashes to the back. I do not know what you readers are thinking by now, but I see 40 lashes as just a more painful death sentence. If you actually live though that then your just suffering for a really long time.

Now the sentence has been reduced to 15 days in jail and to exile the teacher from the country. This is still pretty rough but it sure beats having to take 40 lashes to the back. So, thats the story and just think its ridiculous. Now do not misunderstand what I am about to say and I am not trying to generalize here...but this is an example of when extremists such as the people in Sudan take religion to a whole new level. In today's modern world where most of the world is NOT like this, this is prime example of when they two cultures clash and it seems to never work.

So let me know what you think. Thanks.

Post 11: Pakistan Aid

I recently have heard others talking about this and on the news. Apparently the United States gives Pakistan 150 million dollars a month to "aid" them on the war against terrorism. So, considering the years that this aid has been going on we have given the Pakistan a ton of money. I personally think this is totally wrong.

What have they done to aid us or help us in the fight? They lost Osama when they were sent in to get him so I guess the big question is "what do they have to show for all the money that we have invested in them." I see nothing and this upsets me. Especially with all the controversy surrounding President Musharraf of Pakistan, I am really just sick of Pakistan.

They are made out to be an ally of the United States and of the war on terror, but has their help been significant and are they really that trustworthy. I think not. I see Musharraf as someone that is holding out his hand for money while saying that he will aid us in all the ways he can, but he is completely insincere and really just focused on using the money to benefit his own country.

The United States uses Pakistan as a place for us to mark off as non-threatening but I really think that they are just as untrustworthy as many other countries in today’s world.

Post 10: Musharraf

I recently read an article that discussed the issues regarding the President of Pakistan, Musharraf and how he declared the country in a state of emergency so he could remain in power. Many believe, as the author of the article suggests, that even though other countries can tell Musharraf that they are not pleased with his actions, there is really nothing that anyone can due. This is all despite the uproar from many Pakistan civilians who are upset with Musharraf’s actions.I am, personally, always trying to keep myself up to date with what is happening in the world, especially in the Middle East.

The whole conflict with Musharraf is disturbing. Pakistan, a country that the United States says it can depend on, is now facing leadership issues. This is one reason that I found this article so interesting and chose to use it. One thing that I learned was that not only are other countries upset with Musharraf, but many of his own people are absolutely furious with him. This article applies to me in a few ways. With all the problems in the Middle East as it is, Musharraf is just causing problems that are simply unneeded and really expose him for being corrupt. Again and again, his people and other countries are telling him that he should not have seized power by claiming the emergency. I really think that this was just a way for him to hold on to his power because he might be afraid that the recount for the election that Pakistan just held might rule against him. This kind of thing just bothers me cause the last thing we need is for another leader to misuse power in the Middle East.

Again, I just want to see you all have to say about this. What do you think he should do or do you actually think he had legitimate reasons for announcing the state of emergency.

Post 9: Abortion is not a Religious Issue?

Post 9:
I recently read an article in the Los Angeles times and the author of the editorial claimed that abortion was not a religious issue. The article discussed the position that using religion as defense against abortion is not a legitimate argument. It points out that that people use the argument that abortion is not legitimate because those people believe that it is murder. This article uses the argument that it cannot be murder because the child is not developed and because it is the mother that makes the decision to stop the development of the baby. The writer also points out that abortion is not a religious issue because the Catholic Church has not treated abortion as murder in the past centuries.

One reason that I chose to write about this article was because I attend a Catholic school and I have always been told that abortion is murder. I also found this article interesting because the title was the exact opposite of what I had been taught in the past. I learned from this article a few things. One thing that I learned was that only 10 percent of evangelicals allow for abortion in case of rape. The topic applies to me because, because I go to a Catholic school and as I mentioned, abortion is often a topic that is discussed. It is really interesting to find an editorial which takes a completely different view than what I am used to because I really have never heard the argument that abortion is not a relgious issue. I have heard people debating using different arguments, but not simply say that the issue is "this way" because your whole defense makes no sense.

So I really just want to know what you all think of the position that abortion is by no means a religious issue. Abortion is one of those topics with tons of controversie and those who do claim that abortion is murder often take a religious defense. So, the author is basically saying that all those arguments are false simply because it is not a religious issue.

Post 8: Fred Thomposn

Fred Thompson is one candidate that is running for the 2008 Republican Party nomination. I recently read an article about him in the L.A. times that discussed him and his background. The article goes through the stories and process when he was the Assistant U.S. Attorney. He joined up to fight crime when he was only 27 years old. Lately, as he campaigns for the 2008 election, he has portrayed himself as a crime fighter and as an individual who is generally tough on crime. In reality many of his cases were more minor, but during that career, he had 27 moon shine cases.

I am always interested as to what is going on as far as the presidential candidates go. Thus, Fred Thompson has stuck out because he really does have different credentials than many of the other candidates do. So, I have been trying to find out, based on this article, rather or not these credentials really mean anything. He was an actor on Law and Order and also an Assistant U.S. Attorney. We all know that him being an actor means nothing, but has his experiences as a U.S. Attorney really helped? As mentioned earlier, he was one for quite awhile and he had many cases. Thus, many see this as strong credentials and as stated in the article:

"Thompson also returned to politics. He spent much of the rest of the year working for the reelection of U.S. Sen. Howard Baker Jr...Thompson was a political loyalist and friend. And he had earned an important credential: He had been a prosecutor."

So, based on the information I have given, the majority does feel that he is ready to lead this country. I personally like him, but despite the amount of news I watch or amount of talk radio I listen to, I am having trouble distinguishing where he stands on certain issues. In the end, it is impressive that he has gained so much support since entering the race. Based on the amount of people that I personally know that support him, I assume that he knows what he is talking about. It is just that when I compare him to, lets say, Giuliani, who has more experience, I realize that it really has been awhile since Thompson actually worked for the government.

It will be interesting to watch the race and see if Thompson can pull out on top and that if he will ever be questioned about his experience. I remember reading somewhere that when he was asked some questions about law, his responses were not correct. When comparing him to other candidates though, he really did have a good career in politics and would make a good leader.

Post 7: GOP Looking for Help

I read in the LA times that there are GOP leaders that were reestablishing a campaign to help the Republicans in the 2008 presidential election. The help that they are looking for is in California. According to the article that I read, if California changes the way it processes its Electoral College votes, Republicans might have a chance of obtaining it.

“The proposed initiative would change California's method of allocating its 55 electoral votes from a winner-take-all basis, which favors Democrats, to a congressional district-based approach. Republicans hold 19 congressional seats, so presumably the GOP nominee could win a similar number of electoral votes.”

This search for help in the 2008 though has met many obstacles as the leaders of this campaign fell short of money a few months back. Now, there are many Democratic Party leaders that are accusing Republican Party donators of funding the change in order to specifically benefit Rudy Giuliani. So now there are those that are bashing this strategy and simply accusing the GOP of fraud.

“"Republicans seem to be pursuing a strategy where they will lose at the polls and, along the way, define the GOP as the party of electoral fraudster," said Chris Lehane, a former Clinton White House aide who was organizing the opposition.

It will be very interesting to see if the change is made and to see if the GOP actually benefits from California in the 2008 election. Clearly, there are those in the GOP that are worried about loosing the 2008 election and are willing to go to any measures in order to help the party’s chances in the election. I really do think that if the Republicans can get the signatures to pass their proposal, then it is fair. This is an election year and it is fair game to help out your party in any way possible. It is ridiculous to accuse leaders of the GOP of fraud just because they found a way to benefit their party.

Post 6: Turkish Troops in North Iraq

I have been following the news lately in regards to whether or not Turkey would decide to head into Northern Iraq. In order to really understand the significance of their entrance into Iraq, I need to note some background information. Basically, for a long time now, Iraqi Kurdish forces in Northern Iraq have been killing Turks along the border of Iraq. On October 7, these same rebels in Northern Iraq killed 13 Turkish soldiers. This basically is one of the deadliest attacks that the Kurds have committed and the Turks are really fed up.

This lack of tolerance for the Kurds is quite clear with Turkish lawmakers voting for the entrance with 507 to 19 in favor of entering Iraq.

I personally am having trouble with deciding with whether or not this is a “good” thing. On one hand I believe that the Turks have every right to enter Northern Iraq and stop those who have killed their country men. If I was to put myself in their shoes, I would very well want to enter Iraq and defend my country and avenge those who had been killed. They have every right to be irritated at this point. Many have been killed by the Kurds and by entering Iraq; they have a good chance of putting the killing to a halt.

On the other hand, Turkey entering Iraq could cause other issues which end up hurting the majority. According to the articles that I have read, Turkey entering Iraq destabilizes a region that military leaders have counted on as a stabilized region that can be used when situations get rough. By entering Iraq, the Turks are hurting the overall goal of winning and putting this war to an end by bringing up more conflict in regions that are generally stabilized.

So, I really am curious as to what all of you think. Do you think that the Turks are fully right in entering Iraq in order to send a message to the world that they will not be intimidated and pushed around? Do you believe that they are just causing more trouble and not helping at all? I am really torn between this issue and my opinion probably lies somewhere in between.

(Making up from being absent) Post 5: Putin and Ahmadinejad

I learned while reading the Los Angeles Times that the Russian President, Vladimir Putin has been openly showing support for the Iranian nuclear program.
According to Putin, "'Russia is the only country that has assisted Iran in implementing its peaceful nuclear program. We believe all countries have the right to a peaceful nuclear energy program" (LA Times).
I find this move by Putin odd, yet not surprising since only a few days ago during a meeting with U.S. officials, Putin dismissed plans for a missile defense system. So, my point is that I really think that this is a bad move for Putin. He has already made anti-U.S. public statements in the past and by now befriending Iran, American relations can only worsen. Apparently though, Putin really doesn't care what we think.
According to Dimitri K. Simes, president of the Nixon Center, "'In case you haven't noticed, Russia doesn't have a lot of friends. Putin is looking for friends and strategic alliances where he can find them'" (LA Times).
The United States and Paris have strongly shown their beliefs to be that Iran should not be developing a nuclear program for the possible threat of Ahmadinejad using the program for weapons. I really just wanted to bring to attention the fact that now Iran is getting support from a country like Russia. As mentioned, Putin really has been doing his best lately to not get along with the United States. This is simply a bad decision for him to make and our relations with Russia will only worsen from this. It is upsetting to see relations worsen between countries like Iran and Russia that are willing to develop new nuclear facilities against the will of other nations like France and the United States. I believe this quote from the LA Times really sums up this issue.

“There’s a lot of symbolism involved because Putin is the only high-level leader from a significant country who is personally engaged on the nuclear issue.”

Post 4: Larry Craig Not Leaving?

Post 4

I was watching the news today and learned that Senator Craig has decided not to resign from the Senate. This whole issue is just getting more and more complicated. The Republican Idaho Senator first said that after everything that has happened, that he would resign and then the state governor decides who will take his place (from my understanding, the governor is the one that chooses a replacement). Now, he is continuing with his case that he thought that if he pleaded guilty that the whole issue would have gone away. He also has made statements that he only pleaded guilty because the charges against him were not read aloud in court. These excuses that he continues to make are ridiculous and it is wrong for him to continue to drag on this issue. Plus, I personally find these kind of statements that make his argument more illegitimate because they just sound so ridiculous. The right thing to do would be to relieve the Republican Party of his embarrassment and simply resign. I also heard on the news that he wishes to go back on the ethics committee that he was a part of in order to reestablish his innocence. By even attempting to continue to serve in the Senate, the man is dragging on this issue. The act that he was committed of and that he pleaded guilty to is disgusting and this would all go away if he just resigns. Again, why should he decide to stay around? Members of Congress on both sides have told him to resign. One reason why he might feel obligated to try and stick around is because there are those who have no problem with him staying around. More recently Craig had tried to appeal his old charges where he pleaded guilty. This plead was denied and Craig has stated that he is very disappointed with the results. No matter what the outcome is (whether he gets his original plea appealed or not) Craig is going to be looked at, very differently and he will not have nearly as much influence as he used to. I personally think an issue like this would be gone if Craig would just resign and let the media focus on topics that are more important.

Post 3: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Post 3: Earlier this week Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, landed in New York on Sunday. The next day he would address other representatives of various countries at the United Nations conference. All the controversial issues surrounding his visit are ridiculous because, to me, the answers to the following issues are very clear. Issue number one: should the President of Iran even be allowed to visit the U.S. The answer is no! This man is an extremist who has openly spoke against the United States and has made comments that he looks forward to a world without the United States. He continues to develop his countries nuclear programs and it is a known fact that there are Iranian insurgents from Iran that cross the border into Iraq to kill American troops. This man should not be allowed to set foot on our soil. I believe we should tell him to buzz off and to not bother even trying to speak at the conference. Still, he spoke at the conference on Monday and he said everything that would be expected of such a demagogue. He continued to explain how his nuclear program would continue and that he looked forward to the day that all the arrogant powers were put to an end. This is unbelievable. I understand that he was allowed to speak due to the U.S. welcoming the views of all nations at the conference, but I was appalled that instead of attempting to make peace with the U.S. and other powers against Iran’s nuke program, Ahmadinejad continued to show his arrogance. For those who are going to read this post and assure me that it is really just the U.S. that is bothered by Iran’s nuke programs, you are wrong. The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy firmly stressed the point that if Iran’s nuke program continues that France would be willing to unite with the other powers of the world to put their program to an end. Finally, real briefly, another issue that was controversial was Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia University. I was completely against this visit as well, pretty much for the same reasons that I have just mentioned. Thanks and I hope my right-wing, conservative ideals tick you off because it just makes all this blogging that much more fun.

Post Two: Congress and Immigration...Again

Three months ago an attempt to pass a bill regarding immigration failed. For the most part, the Democratic side of Congress wanted to give citizenship to present illegal immigrants, while most Republicans wanted to put restrictions on the illegal immigrants. After the bill failed, and the whole issue died fairly quickly. This was, of course, due to the failure and so the news and politicians moved on to other issues. Now, the topic is being brought back up and I read that an amendment could be introduced as early as this week. Again, Democrats want to give legal status to the immigrants, while Republicans want a short-term worker program. This renewed activity regarding immigration is a guarantied controversial subject.

As Sen. Jeff Sessions says, "We may be heading for another immigration battle."

I believe that this entire issue will have to be settled in a way that meets the desires of both political parties. I believe that the answer to Illegal immigration is not to allow all of them to become citizens. I know this country needs them, but again, conditional citizenship is not the answer. Citizenship is based on whether you were born in the U.S., or if you pass the exams to become a citizen after applying. By simply giving all these illegal immigrants conditional citizenship, we really do not who we are allowing and welcoming to the US. Doing this crosses a dangerous line and presents a threat to America. But at the same time, a short-term worker program is not the answer. Many of the illegal immigrants do have good intentions and deserve to be citizens. But, a lot of the time they are unable to become citizens because of the long process. Plenty of immigrants have come to this country, have made a career and have become citizens. Its the ones that do not do this, and instead use our facilities for their own benefits without paying that is aggravating. I honestly do not have any proposition to settle the immigration disputes, all I know is that in the end, an agreement must be made so we can move on to other important topics.

Source: LA Times. Front Section

Post One: Political Coverage Trustworthy?

Post 1: I recently read an article regarding Cyrus Nowrasteh, the writer of the film, “Pathway to 9/11,” and a conflict that he is currently facing. For those reading this blog that do not know what, “Pathway to 9/11,” is, it is a film that depicts all the chances that Bill Clinton had to order the killing of Bin Laden in the 90’s. The film sparked a lot of controversy and Cyrus was attacked by the left winged media for attacking Bill Clinton’s, “reputation,” and for exposing the truth behind the Clinton Administrations chances to rid the world of Bin Laden. Anyways, since the films release, Cyrus has tried to get the film on DVD and for many months ABC, the station from where the film was broadcasted, told him that there would be a DVD. But, recently, I read an article by Cyrus Nowrasteh in which he states that an ABC executive told him the following regarding the reasons why they would not release the film, “’If Hillary weren’t running for president, this wouldn’t be a problem’” (Wall Street Journal. “A real 9/11 Cover-Up.” By Cyrus Nowrasteh. September 11, 2007). When I read this quote by an ABC executive, I was outraged. ABC, the same company that owns Disney and is one of the few industries that are able to influence the general public through the media that they release, was making decisions based on how the Democrats in America were represented. Now, to my main point. If ABC, the same company and news channel that influences millions of Americans that watch their news, daily, is willing to not allow the production of a DVD, for political reasons, then just imagine the corruption and abuse that might be represented through their news station. The political and government related news shown everyday on ABC, for all the public knows, is just as skewed and bias as the comments that the executive of ABC made. If the executive is willing to sway the public in this coming election by not producing a DVD, than imagine the washed down and manipulative news that the public is receiving regarding the upcoming election. It is wrong and simply manipulative for companies like ABC to take the power that they know they have and use it to sway the public’s opinion in one direction. The news is supposed to be a representative of both sides of all situations and is supposed to be unbiased. But, clearly this is untrue and it is still upsetting to me that there are individuals out there that do not even understand that they are being manipulated into taking one political side over another.