Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game - with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates. The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

[slow learner, but we'll take it. Note that, again {the trend is growing}, the source is one of established media's own]

READ MORE

The Department of Early Indoctrination

The authors of two recent children's picture books detailing the life Barack Obama have taken this classical Greek advice to heart, turning Hillary Clinton's classic mockery -- "Celestial choruses will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect" -- into the straight-faced official biography for the four to seven year-old set.

Here, for example, is how Jonah Winter, striking a tone in BARACK somewhere between Vladimir Lenin and action movie preview narrator, translates the presidential race for America's impressionable babes:

[O]n the horizon, at the dawn of a new age, there appeared a man who would be the embodiment of King's dream -- a presidential candidate whose very being was a bridge that joined nations.

Not to be outdone, Nikki Grimes' Son of Promise, Child of Hope describes the early years of Barack, "his mama, white as whipped cream; his daddy, black as ink," thusly:

He was there in Chicago because he cared about these people. They were his family. People in Kenya were his family. Indonesians were his family. And no matter where he was, the world was his home. And who he was could be summed up in one word: loveable.

Well, at least she doesn't say Messiah.

[not funny, in fact alarming - Recommended > ]

READ MORE

Charter Success in L.A.

This month the Inner City Education Foundation (ICEF), a charter school network in Los Angeles, announced plans to expand the number of public charter schools in the city's South Central section, which includes some of the most crime-ridden neighborhoods in the country. Over the next four years, the number of ICEF charters will grow to 35 from 13. Eventually, the schools will enroll one in four students in the community, including more than half of the high school students.

The demand for more educational choice in predominantly minority South Los Angeles is pronounced. The waitlist for existing ICEF schools has at times exceeded 6,000 kids. And no wonder. Like KIPP, Green Dot and other charter school networks that aren't constrained by union rules on staffing and curriculum, ICEF has an excellent track record, particularly with black and Hispanic students. In reading and math tests, ICEF charters regularly outperform surrounding traditional public schools as well as other Los Angeles public schools... [snip]

Despite this success, powerful unions like the California Teachers Association and its political backers continue to oppose school choice for disadvantaged families. Last year, Democratic state lawmakers, led by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, tried to force Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign a bill that would have made opening a new charter school in the state next to impossible...

READ MORE

Oliver Stone's W 'won't recoup'

If recent trends continue Hollywood may be looking for a government handout. A surge of liberal style patriotism has gripped the movers and shakers in Hollywood, they have produced movie after movie critical of the war in Iraq. Every one a box office dud.

(Snip) There's been tremendous interest by the public in the box office fate of Oliver Stone's W. for its second weekend in release. Well, it ran out of steam. QED International/Lionsgate's Bush biopic sank 58% to No. 7 with a $5.3M weekend.

READ MORE

[HT:GC - 'why male elk have long antlers - it's a guy thing']

Re: Sunday's Unsolicited Opinion

Wow.

Very surprised at the amount of feedback to yesterday's 'special' sending given how many of you receive your Briefs at work. Also gratified by its mostly (nobody bats 1000) appreciative tenor - thank you all.

Re: reposting it again today so 'everyone' gets it; unnecessary: yesterday's sending was to the full distribution. However it can be found HERE, and forwarded by cut-&-pasting or as always by sending a link-back with the little white envelope at the lower-left of the piece.

Thanks again
.

Meet the people who are going to put Obama in office

This is really incredible. It stunned Ben Smith over at Politico where I got these quotes. It floored a GOP consultant who conducted the focus group where the people were quoted.

And it is perhaps the single most depressing thing I've read this entire campaign season:

The GOP consultant emailed Smith about a focus group he just finished conducting. Evidently, he showed a hard hitting ad on Ayers to the group and this was the email he sent:

Reagan Dems and Independents. Call them blue-collar plus. Slightly more Target than Walmart.

Yes, the spot worked. Yes, they believed the charges against Obama. Yes, they actually think he's too liberal, consorts with bad people and WON'T BE A GOOD PRESIDENT...but they STILL don't give a f***. They said right out, "He won't do anything better than McCain" but they're STILL voting for Obama.

The two most unreal moments of my professional life of watching focus groups:

54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, NASCAR fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."

The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."

I felt like I was taking crazy pills. I sat on the other side of the glass and realized...this really is the Apocalypse. The Seventh Seal is broken and its time for eight years of pure, delicious crazy....

For the first time, I really feel scared about the future. These people are like the Germans in the election of 1933. They know what's coming but they don't care. Back then, all they cared about was that Hitler was going to give them a job and keep their lunch pails full. And stick it to the Jews. And restore Germany's "rightful place" in the world. They knew full well that Hitler would destroy the independent unions, crack down on dissent, and turn Germany from a very free country into a fascist dictatorship.

Part of this is McCain's fault. He bought into that populist crap about greedy Wall Street. Well, so as ye sow, so shall ye reap. And we're about to reap the whirlwind.

In this kind of atmosphere any kind of a government is possible. And I don't know if Obama can resist the kind of raw power these nincompoops are willing to give him. Who could?

You need a license to own a dog but any fool can vote.

READ MORE

Another Communist in Obama’s Orb

Meet Michael Klonsky, Obama's "social justice" education expert

With what little media oxygen there has been sucked out by the largely uninformative discussion of Ayers (and his wife and Weather Underground ally, Bernadine Dohrn) — in which the mantra “unrepentant terrorist” has been a pale substitute for the critical matter of the Ayers’s ideology that Obama plainly shares — much has been missed. Significantly, that includes another key Obama contact, Mike Klonsky.

Here’s what you need to know. Klonsky is an unabashed communist whose current mission is to spread Marxist ideology in the American classroom. Obama funded him to the tune of nearly $2 million. Obama, moreover, gave Klonsky a broad platform to broadcast his ideas: a “social justice” blog on the official Obama campaign website.

To be clear, as it seems always necessary to repeat when Obamaniacs, in their best Saul Alinsky tradition, shout down the opposition: This is not about guilt by association. The issue is not that Obama knows Klonsky … or Ayers … or Dohrn … or Wright … or Rashid Khalidi …

The issue is that Obama promoted and collaborated with these anti-American radicals. The issue is that he shared their ideology...

READ MORE

Chgo Sun-Times: McCain 'Treats His Rival Like a Field N-----'

The Chicago Sun-Times treats us to Andrew Greeley's thoughtful analysis, "Palin, McCain stir up storm of ugly racism." Greeley begins:

"South Pacific" is a morality play for our time. Sarah Palin is the Ensign Nellie Forbush -- an All-American girl as racist, this time a racist with her eye on the White House. She can stir up crowds to shout "Kill him!" at the mention of the presidential candidate of the other party a couple of weeks before the national election.

And later:

Playing the race card explicitly merely guarantees what I have thought from the beginning -- racism in this country precludes the possibility of a sepia-colored man becoming president. However, the last-ditch attack on him guarantees that McCain and Palin will be blamed as the candidates who were content to hear crowds calling for the death of Obama.

Then Greeley completes his trip around the bend:

McCain increasingly acts like an angry, befuddled cancer survivor and treats his rival like a field n----- who is just barely human.

Greeley writes a column of commentary. He's entitled to his own opinion - as twisted as it may be - but he's not entitled to his own facts.

Greeley contends the GOP is "playing the race card explicitly." But when did either McCain or Palin introduce race into the campaign? Liberals hate to acknowledge it, but Obama is the only candidate brining the subject up.

It was Obama who said: “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?'"

It was Obama who said: "So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know."

In attacking McCain and Palin for alleged racism, Greeley himself employs the most hurtful term in the racist lexicon, the n-word.

It's becoming more apparent as Election Day draws closer, that for Obamatons any iota of opposition to The One can only be explained by virulent racism. The derangement syndrome rages on.

READ MORE

The Real Threat of Censorship

Since losing power in 1994, the Left has been making ugly noises about what would happen when it regained power. The “fairness doctrine” has been bandied about, but that is not what should alarm us most. The rise of this Frankenstein is specifically directed at conservative talk radio. In other words, the Left does not believe or does not care about the Leftist unfairness of every other medium in our nation: NPR, PBS, television news, television entertainment, public schools, academia, and library systems.

How, in the world, can any honest and moral person think that rampant bias for the Left is fine not only in public radio but also in public television, but think that private radio is a threat to democracy? How can any honest and moral person think that bias for the Left in the news reporting and, more critically, in the entertainment within a highly subliminal and ubiquitous medium like television is fine, but think talk radio, which deals in the spoken word and not images, is more of a threat to democracy when it has an opinion expressed?

Serious advocates of government mandated fairness – a horrible idea, but horrible ideas can still have serious advocates – should make their case by first exploring and condemning all bias in all sources of information and opinion that rely upon direct or indirect government support. These advocates should condemn the thought control efforts on most college campuses, the ideological bigotry in taxpayer funded television and radio, and the fact that not only do nearly all television networks have the safe Leftist bias, but they deny the corporate wrongdoing of their nominal corporate rivals (if CNN and MSNBC are truly rivals, then why has CNN not savaged MSNBC for its blatant bias?)

The Left does not seriously advocate government mandated fairness. In fact, the Left strongly supports unfairness in every source of information and opinion we receive. It pushes journalism schools to turn out “advocates” instead of reporters; it applauds the most absurd and scurrilous films as “cutting edge;” it gives prizes and awards to the least open minded people.

Now, the Obama campaign has taken the next logical step. Obama troops openly seek to censor campaign ads critical of Obama by threatening private lawsuits and, much more dangerously, punitive actions by public prosecutors against anyone who, in their partisan opinion, does not tell the truth about Obama. The Left now seeks openly to shut up not only those voices who operate on the public airways, like talk radio, but it seeks to shut up any voices who challenge their positions.

It is impossible to overstate the danger of this sort of militancy. Even the pretense of freedom has been shoved aside. The notion of open discussion is in the garbage can. Only one opinion counts, and that is the opinion of the Leader – Barack Obama. We witnessed a bit of this within the Democrat Party earlier: When Republicans crossed over to vote for Obama, Democrats openly menaced this free exercise of a constitutional prerogative of expression. Opposing Obama has, almost, become a crime to some Leftists.

The Left has ended a long journey. When the radical Left consisted largely of Communist Party members, opinion and speech were utterly regulated. The Party Line not only governed what people actually wrote and said, but it was intended to also govern how party members thought. As an example, when Stalin and Hitler became allies in August 1939, the Far Left’s opposition to National Socialism vanished. Those who supported Churchill and Britain against Hitler became “warmongers” and efforts to support the military in America were opposed (the first Leftist opposition to ROTC on campuses was during this period, when training military officers at universities meant building up American military power to oppose Nazi Germany.) Only a few Communists resigned from the Party; most stayed and followed orders. Censorship was the modus operandi of the Far Left, and it seemed normal to Party members.

Academia has long been filled with very real censorship. Scientists who challenge the intellectual viability of evolution by natural selection are denied tenure, fired, or otherwise harassed. Pity the professor who questions the dogma of global warming. The ideologically scripted history of the Cold War is immune to the Venona decryptions, the revelations from Kremlin archives, or even confessions of Soviet spies decades after their crimes.

More frighteningly, speech codes and the very term “politically incorrect” have been formally adopted by college administrations as the proper way to speak, to write, and to think. Coercion, not persuasion, has become the preferred means of advancing Leftism. Why then should we be so surprised that partisans in political campaigns now find the Left menacing them for politically incorrect versions of truth?

What will prevent the Left from enforcing censorship on America? Scruples? The Left already lies without remorse. Justice? The Duke Lacrosse Team and Scooter Libby can tell you how little justice means to the Left when politics is at issue. Freedom? The ugly reality is that the Left does not believe in any kind of freedom - the socialism of Leftism always presupposed that economic “security” trumped economic freedom, but Leftism cannot and does not try to limit its hatred of freedom to only one sphere of life. All the Left does, really, is punish those who challenge it.

Now that Leftist lust for control, that will to enslave, that intention to crush any rival to Leftist power is dangerously brazen and critically close to becoming real. If that happens, if an Obama Administration led by a lockstep Leftist Congress could wield federal power to genuinely stifle the voice of oppression. An assumption that people who have shown no restraint at all in their pursuit of power would not take the last, bitter, necessary step toward the sort of control which the Left once exercised is an error.

Perhaps, for us, it may be the most tragic error in the history of our republic.

READ MORE

indoctrinate U on TV

The Documentary Channel will be showing "Indoctrinate U"
as part of its "Controversy in America" series.

Airtimes are:

Monday, October 27th : 09:00 PM - 10:30 PM

Tuesday, October 28th: Midnight - 01:30 AM
(Starts after midnight Monday)

Saturday, November 1st: 05:00 PM - 06:30 PM

Sunday, November 2nd: 02:00 AM - 03:30 AM

Tuesday, November 4th: 03:00 AM - 04:30 AM

(All times Eastern U.S.)

The Documentary Channel is available on satellite and many cable
systems nationwide. Check your provider for channel information.

The schedule is subject to change. For the most up-to-date list of
airtimes, visit:

http://tinyurl.com/indoctrinate-u-docu-chan

To find out more about "Indoctrinate U," go to:

http://indoctrinate-u.com/
.

Liberal Activist on California Prop 8: If Only Lots of Old Voters Died Before Election

If only elderly voters in California would die off in large enough numbers before November 4, then the final nail could be hammered in the coffin of California Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. That according to liberal activist Kristina Wilfore, the executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, "an advocacy organization that specializes in using ballot initiatives to further liberal causes." Her comments were buried deep inside Michael Lindenberger's October 21 item at Time.com:

Wilfore says she's prepared to take the long view in California

"I am not going to be discouraged if we lose," she says. Victory will come over time in the courts, as demographics works its influence on the nation's voting patterns, she says, noting that young people support gay marriage far more than their parents and grandparents do. "A lot of people are going to have to die" before Election Day is an easy day for gay marriage, she says.

["victory will come over time in the courts" - here's the legitimate crisis we need rectify]

READ MORE

S&P slashes New York Times rating to junk

Standard & Poor's on Thursday slashed its ratings on the New York Times Co (NYT.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) into junk territory and cited concerns about the newspaper publisher's revenue outlook, after it posted a third-quarter loss. Moody's Investors Service also said it may follow the move, adding the publisher faces risks in refinancing its debt.

READ MORE

Online Divorcee Jailed After Killing Virtual Hubby

TOKYO (AP) -- A 43-year-old Japanese woman whose sudden divorce in a virtual game world made her so angry that she killed her online husband's digital persona has been arrested on suspicion of hacking, police said Thursday. (Snip) The woman had not plotted any revenge in the real world, the official said.

READ MORE

UNSOLICITED OPINION


'Editor's' note {well, real editors get paid - still:}

Received what can only be called a complaint re: the name-names politicalization of the NNBriefs of late, to which I penned an unpolished reply. As I imagine there are others with like sentiments I share it here:


[HT:NP {actually Ms. Nancy has a new/married last name I can't recall - my apologies}]

- excerpt -

re: the Brief, yes I admit its become very political - ironic, given that I used to pride myself on its 'apoliticality' (i.e., focusing on issue background facts only, also suppressed by the old media). However, as I've come to be truly concerned that an Obama administration, particularly with a Democrat controlled congress, would be highly detrimental to my nation and likely set the foundation for a country (especially in judicial nominations) for a country profoundly different for my children in terms of their liberty and security, I've decided to counter what I believe to be the intolerable bias of the media by focusing on the many, many aspects to Obama's candidacy they're simply suppressing. Articles we're unlikely to see in the MSM is the charter of the blog (left side-bar) - and in Obama's case the spin by omission and outright misinformation have reached such a degree that correcting for it consumes the entire blog. I frankly am not enjoying it anymore and look forward to resuming my background/issue factoids format after the election - hang in there (I am).

- end -

Addendum:

While I'm fond of reminding folks that we don't elect Tzars in this country and that our system is structured to provide a tempering balance through division of power, it doesn't make the populace immune to ideological demagoguery which, in concert with a sympathetic media, can dupe the electorate long enough to allow the implementation of government programs, laws, and influential 'institutions' that essentially jury-rig subsequent developments (see: our education system, which has now produced generations of young people who weren't taught the detrimental effects of socialism to national affluence and individual liberty, and the media; now so imbued with liberal thought its become literally incapable of even recognizing its own bias - with incalculable harm to our nation).

This isn't fighting the good fight re: conflicting policy options nor just another example of our sloppy, difficult, cherished democracy in action. They're about gerrymandering our system, a piece at a time, to ensure end results - albeit frequently not coming to full (and likely irreversible) fruition until our children have children.

Exaggerated? I hope so. But consider:

1) An Obama administration in concert with a Democrat controlled congress has informed us they will enact government run healthcare [aka; Single-Payer system or Nationalized Health Care] , making the populace reliant on the government - and so the political party that promotes it - for an essential service. Does anyone think such a program would diminish over time or, once the populace has acclimated to it, it stands any chance of being revoked? Comparatively, does anyone really believe that over time it won't evolve into just another mechanism for imposing social engineering/politically correct mandates upon the populace? (Really? you're not overweight - according to the government - are you?) [Programs]

2) An Obama administration in concert with a Democrat controlled congress has informed us they will enact 'The Fairness Doctrine', a law target at (and only at) radio that would make it logistically and financially impossible to continue the numerous opinion talk shows colloquially dubbed 'conservative radio'. For the record I am not, generally, a fan of these shows as they tend to be as extreme/sensational as their liberal counter parts {with the notable caveat of being profitable}. Nonetheless, intermixed with emotional opinion you'll hear facts {some admittedly dubious - some very well researched} that the MSM will never share with the populace. As such they serve as a The predominant dissemination mechanism for alternative (to the MSM) information/opinion (i.e., output - the internet is the input, as its not filtered for us by our media elites). It also represents a good example of 'sloppy, difficult' democracy in that it has plenty of junk citizens must exercise their own judgement to grade. Obama and company intend to literally silence this unregulated forum by, well, regulating it in ways know to everyone knowledgeable with the industry of for-profit radio will kill them. Think of the implications this loss of the only viable counter to the liberal MSM would have on future popular opinion and elections. Those promoting it have - that's their whole intention. [Laws]

3) An Obama administration in concert with a Democrat controlled congress has informed us they will support the implementation of EFCA: "Card Check" for union organizing. This will strip employees of their right to a secrete vote re: if they'd like to unionize, and is nothing more than a government mandate to instill intimidation by forcing employees who don't support unionization to decline face-to-face with 'organizers' - and so be known as dissenters. Anyone not seeing the horrendous extortion this represents is simply unfamiliar with the history and tactics of labor unions continuing to this day - it's in your interest to educate yourselves - starting with how union membership has skyrocketed wherever states have allowed this practice. In addition to the uncompetitiveness it forces on business in the short term (think Detroit), it institutionalizes methods guaranteed to consistently grow the ranks of those beholden to the government - meaning the party that supports it - for that portion of their livelihood gained through union extortion (and paid for by the rest of us). Think of the future ramifications to an ever growing (reversing the private sector trend of diminishing union membership) number of such beholden voters; monetary incentive trumps virtually all else: they'll be bought and paid for forever. [Institutions]

That's just three (of many) examples of Programs, Laws and Institutions having long term repercussions to our system of individual-based self government that Obama and company have said they'll enact...

But as disturbing as what's been said is the growing evidence of just how much is being denied Americans for consideration during this, the world's most important job application process, such as:

A) There is no evidence whatsoever that Obama has ever been an ideologically unifying force in the past that he tells us (and the media let him get way with) he'd be in the future. Just the opposite, his record is one of extreme partisanship and inflexibility - so much so that nonpartisan analysis ranks him as the single most liberal Senator in the nation. Common sense should mutually exclude this fact from any claim to 'moderation' or 'unifying' intention - but alas, not in the current media climate which consistently attacks the source (in this case, the report) instead of investigating (not concluding - that's for us to decide, but 'merely' discussing at length) the validity of alternative contentions. (if only we had journalists that specialized in investigating - outside of 13 year old DUI's of candidate spouses, that is).

B) Then there's Obama's long list of past associations (see this map for a graphical representation of its scope, albeit obsolete as the list continues to grow). Here again the MSM runs constant interference by again and again saying that even discussing any such is somehow a 'smear campaign'. One instance, repeated ad nauseam might qualify as such - but once again we've the exact opposite of what the MSM claims: a long and growing (despite the MSM's best efforts) history of identified associations that are neither casual or fleeting but are repeatedly, consistently, with those having truly extreme social views and agendas as compared to those of the majority of Americans (which I'll remind the media again continues to be center-right). Who over the age of 30 doesn't recognize the legitimacy of taking such past consistency of association as an indicator of future conduct? And is it not more likely that Obama's associations have shaped his character, as it does the rest of us, than that such a number spanning decades somehow didn't effect him in any manner (and what would that suggest about his nature)? I find it insulting on its face to suggest - yet the MSM seems to have convinced a measurable segment of the population that they're inconsequential and not worth worrying about. I personally consider it infinitely more likely (that's politically-correct speech for; "adults know") that Obama's aforementioned uber-liberal ranking is the result of these past associations - and once that causation is recognized what does it say about his future pursuits?

C) Most disturbing of all is the extreme degree (although he's not alone) to which so much of Obama's past has literally been 'sealed' - i.e., barred the American voter. How is it possible that anyone, anywhere, considers anything off the table when it comes to vetting for the position of worlds most powerful person? Moreover, how is it possible - in this country - for that to be tolerated by a populace supposedly raised to understand (and defend) the responsibilities of the self-governed and by extension the criticality of wide ranging exploration and discourse? I find it baffling and alarming in the extreme that these two states could exist and not automatically exclude Obama from serious consideration - but that's what is is occurring. I find this to be a distasteful (and frightening) example that, with sufficient control of our communication mediums, reasonably savvy Americans can be duped into accepting nearly anything if there's no countering opinion to consider (not a dig at anyone's intelligence; we're busy - and in the absence of someone {anyone} making us aware of an alternative view we've rarely the time to develop it our selves and the herd mentality prevails). Imagine hiring for a position at your work where an applicants resume was full of popular buzz words and catch phrases re: his skill set but lacked any explicit prior accomplishments - and under the education section listed his college but noted that his GPA was 'personal/decline to state'. Would any of us hire such an applicant? So why would we when discussing the Presidency of the United States of America?

Again, these are but some few examples - if one were to avail themselves of what's available on the internet (and grade intelligently) - of why this election cycle in general and the candidacy of Barack Obama in particular has become alarming to me.

Last example: that his entire diatribe hasn't even addressed the potentially (which by definition makes it 'the') most immediately pressing issue of this election: national security in the context of the ongoing Global War On Terror, and the continuing convergence of suicide bombers with portable WMD intended to be used against us when they come to fruition. How is it that this horrific specter - known to be factual in intent if not capability as yet - isn't the headline topic of this election? Should we not be having an exhaustive national debate on the mechanics of asymmetrical war and its utter reliance on intelligence gathering to interdict attacks vs. the after-the-fact reprisal model of 'law enforcement' Obama and the Democrats somehow think will be sufficient to deter suicide bombers? I happen to believe the likelihood of such an attack actually occurring to be fairly remote - but considering the consequences, is it responsible to play the odds on this issue? I don't think so - but we're not really talking about that - why? A: Because that's an Obama 'weakness' - better to concentrate on the troubled economy as that's (erroneously) laid at the feet of Republicans in many voters' minds. What will any of us possible say to our children if this unthinkable scenario comes to pass because we chose not to take it seriously (enough) to assure its prevention due to political ideology?

Rhetorical, I pray - but we're afforded, nay; empowered with the responsibility - to directly influence the course of this nation. It's a great, great power - and responsibility.

For the record, I'm not a Republican nor a conservative nor even a person of faith {all of which often surprise those who learn them}. I'm just a working stiff who takes his citizenship seriously, all the more so as I'm also a father. Sure I've political beliefs of my own and they naturally (and rightly) steer my voting patterns. But when I 'reverse engineer' what I believe an Obama administration - again in conjunction with a Democrat controlled Congress - would mean potentially short term and almost certainly long term, I must agree with one mantra from 'the right' which simply rings true to my ears: Obama is simply 'too risky' to put in such a position of power. 'He's cool', and/or 'new' and/or 'historic' and/or 'change' don't meet the high standard demanded by the consequences of our choice.

I've reached this conclusion by dispassionately (and trust me; with McCain that's easy) stepping through the probabilities of cause and effect - and once again feel left with an inadequate 'lesser of evils' choice. But a lousy choices doesn't mean parity between them, and one is clearly more dangerous than the other when thought through.

That's what compelled me to share some examples of why I feel this election is wrong in many ways and why it's so important we the voters get it right regardless.




SAH