This site is best viewed using Mozilla Firefox browser.

What's New

2008-09-01 15:06:00

What's new?

Question: What’s new Charlie?

Answer: Although it may seem like at times I try to be a political pundit , I am not, nor do I want to be. I don’t know why anyone would want to be, or be associated with such a disrespectful and deceitful industry. Have you ever seen anything like it? Each day…hate, rudeness and biased reporting are front and center. If there is no “fire,” the media feels compelled to start one. Campaigns think, “What the heck, we might as well take advantage of this and take portions of comments out of context. The public is so ignorant, they’ll never know.” I would like to know, what gives anyone the right to intentionally distort, whether you’re a candidate, reporter or consumer? While watching the conventions in late August and early September, I panned across all of the networks...MSNBC, PBS, Headline News, CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC and CBS. I could have been Stevie Wonder, not knowing which channel I was on, yet still identified each by their most biased, political persuasion. I do marketing for a living. I seek to find a “hole” in a given market, and then I attempt to build a product or service to fill the hole, in such a way so no one else can fill that hole as well and/or for less cost. One cannot find a pure journalist today. A pure journalist reports on both sides of an issue, in a fair and balanced manner, and lets the consumers of the report decide. Tell me, when is the last time you saw this being played out? A reporter should be like a catalyst in chemistry. A catalyst causes a reaction to occur without entering into the reaction. Perhaps this is the root of all of our problems today. So much hate, innuendos, false charges, lies, gossip, miss-reporting…talk about a “hole” in a market! Americans are starved for fair and balanced reporting. This is a “hole” that needs to be pursued and filled. I submit we would not need the dozen or so networks we have. More than 80% of the populace would be watching the one that does. I don’t need some pompous, egotistical, hot-headed, rude, ill-prepared, loud-mouth maniac like Bill O’Reilly telling me what to decide. (Why don’t you tell us how you really feel Charlie). Just report both sides Bill and I will decide. Can you believe this guy? Following his interview with Hillary Clinton several weeks ago, all he could do is invite guests on his show and ask them, “How did I do?” Bill, I know this will come as a shock to you, but it’s not about you. It’s about the person you are interviewing. Recently you had 40 minutes to interview Barrack Obama. You did the same thing. For nearly two weeks, you asked every commentator and guest on your show how you did. Unbelievable! I’m not saying that Chet Huntley and David Brinkley were always pure, but can you imagine either of them, after interviewing Eisenhower, asking guests and colleagues, “How do you think I did?” By the way, just because I didn’t mention the commentator you watch doesn’t mean he or she does it right. They do not. I have not been able to find one that does. And if you’re asking why I keep watching Bill O’Reilly and FOX News, and why I’m so hard on them, it’s because they have such a great opportunity to be the ones to do it right. They have carved out the niches of “fair and balanced reporting,” and “the spin stops here,” but they miss the mark so badly. That makes them the worst. They say they do and don’t. You are fortunate you do not have to listen to me and my comments each evening as I chastise him and them for their journalistic breaches. If I live long enough and can work it in to all that I do, I will figure out how to get journalistic purity in the News. I think it would be a product that would fill a “hole” that would be wildly successful. Here’s another item I need some help with. I vividly remember every race for President since Kennedy-Nixon. I remember one party saying the other had “tax and spend” philosophies, and the other party would say, “They only support big business.” I remember hearing remarks that one person voted for this and that, and the other person countered, with, “Yeah buts.” But never have I heard of the things happening and going down like they are concerning Barrack Obama. And again, the more I do the research to find out if what I find is true, I find YES, it is true, and no one refutes Fair and balanced reporting is reporting on something that has occurred, is occurring, or will be occurring, and giving both sides. I’ve got one side but I can find no one to give me the other. I couldn’t believe this recent story from Joseph Farah at World Net Daily (WND)... “The tax-funded Chicago organization cited as a probable model for programs to integrate youth into the social and political world under Obama tenure in the White House is the epitome of “Big Brother” that shovels impressionable youth through a course of brainwashing, according to critics. The organization is called Public Allies and Democratic. Presidential nominee Sen. Barrack Obama was a founding member of the board of directors in 1992. He later resigned and his wife became executive director of the group. According to an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily (IBD), Obama plans to use the non-profit, which is funded partly by the federal government and is featured on Obama’s campaign website, as the model for a national service corps, called the “Universal Voluntary Public Service.” Senator Barrack Obama’s stunning assertion in a recent speech that the U.S. needs a “civilian national security force” that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force is not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks. Campaign officials have declined to return any of a series of WND telephone calls over several days requesting comment. Nor have they posted a transcript of the speech on their website. The lines are not included in a transcript of the prepared remarks published by the Denver Post and Wall Street Journal. Obama asserted in a Colorado Springs speech that the U.S. needs a “civilian national security force that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force.” In the July 2nd speech in Colorado Springs, Obama insisted the U.S. “cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set.” He continued, “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” “Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas,” said IBD. “They plan to herd American youth into government-funded re-education camps where they’ll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of ‘social change.’” The organization itself doesn’t seem that alarming. It describes itself as serving communities “while developing better leaders for tomorrow.” Young adults are placed in “community leadership” posts with various agencies and given weekly “training.” They get $1,800 plus health and child care. But IBD warns the real mission is something else. That, the editorial said, “is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about ‘social change’ through threats, pressure, tensions and confrontation – the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul ‘The Red’ Alinsky.” Dr. Jerome Corsi, a WND columnist and the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-seller “The Obama Nation,” agreed. He said the overall intent of the program is much the same as the goals of William Ayers, an Obama acquaintance who spent the 1970s and 1980s as an unrepentant radical, during his various programs regarding public education. “Remember, Obama has followed Saul Alinsky’s ultimate advice,” Corsi explained. “Saul Alinsky said radicals like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman could not organize a picnic. Alinsky told his radicals to cut their hair, buy business suits and run for public office,” he said. “Ayers and Obama are both aimed at producing radical socialist change from within – working today to radicalize our institutions, instead of bombing them. Alinsky considered this approach to be much smarter because it was more likely to produce lasting ‘change’ and less likely to produce a backlash. In other words, the Alinsky-trained radical could apply more easily the Machiavellian technique of lying by denying they were pursuing radical goals if they appeared to be members in good standing of the establishment they were trying merely to ‘change,’” he said. IBD cited statistics from Public Allies itself, in which it boasted, “Our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to … engage in protest activities.” The organization explains it already has dispatched 2,200 community organizers to agitate for “justice” and “equality” in Chicago, Cincinnati, Los Angeles and other cities. “I get to practice being an activist,” and get paid for it, Cincinnati recruit Amy Vincent said, according to IBD. The organization boasts more than two-thirds of its recruits are “people of color,” and 15 percent of “LGBT.” When they’re not out protesting, IBD said, “they’re staffing AIDS clinics, handing out condoms, bailing criminals out of jail and helping illegal aliens and the homeless obtain food stamps and other welfare.” The Allies’ own website confirms it has volunteers working for Planned Parenthood, LGBT centers and Boys & Girls Clubs. Obama has encouraged individuals to shun the “money culture.” “If you commit to serving your community,” he pledged in Denver while accepting the Democratic nomination for president, “we will make sure you can afford a college education.” The IBD said the sales pitch is finding supportive listeners among today’s youth. “I may spend the rest of my life trying to create social movement,” it quotes Brian Coovert, of the Cincinnati Allies chapter saying. “There is always going to be work to do. Until we have a perfect country, I’ll have a job.” IBD said taxpayers already fund half of Public Allies’ expenses through President Clinton’s AmeriCorps, and Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion. The organization notes that it is a non-partisan organization so it does not endorse candidates. However, it has a lengthy description of the involvement by the Obamas with the organization. “Under Michelle’s leadership, Public Allies Chicago pioneered many elements of Public Allies’ program model. To identify and develop the next generation of Chicago leaders, she recruited young people from housing projects and youth centers as well as colleges and universities. Her emphasis on indigenous leadership and belief that all people have potential to lead became a core value of our leadership philosophy. When she left, Public Allies Chicago had a cash reserve, a committed board, a talented young staff, and a network of diverse, talented young leaders in Chicago who continue to serve the community today. Michelle was also a pioneer in the social entrepreneur movement –leaders who create new approaches and organizations to provide new solutions to social problems,” the organization said. “Michelle was an amazing leader and role model for all of us. As a very young staff in the early years, we all emulated Michelle’s incredible combination of professionalism, compassion, critical thinking and commitment to her community. For all of her immense talents, she was also one of the most down-to-earth, inclusive, and authentic leaders I’ve ever worked with. She really did believe that everyone could contribute to their communities and that leaders come from all backgrounds and all parts of the community. The Chicago program she pioneered really created the template we all work from today. We are proud of our colleague and wish her well,” wrote Paul Schmitz, CEO of Public Allies.” So, I go searching for the speech he gave. I find it, but sure enough, the passage, “civilian national security force that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force,” is not there. But he said it. Who removed it from the transcripts? What in the world is happening? How can things like this be going down right under our noses? Who is helping this guy? Any time someone in America, particularly a candidate for the highest office of President, says something in a speech, then that something is removed from the transcript of the speech, we should all be afraid...and do something about it. You want fair and balanced reporting? I do too. Someone…anyone…send me the other side of this because I haven’t been able to find it. Tell me he didn’t say it, or, he didn’t mean it. Or, tell me it was taken out of context. Someone? Anyone? Lastly, I go back to a comment I made in this column a few issues ago. I continue to have a hard time believing Obama and McCain are all we have to choose from for President out of 306 million Americans. We have one who is shrouded so deep in mystery on so many fronts, so full of words and promises, he reminds me of the saying in Texas, “Big hat...no cattle.” Then we have someone calling himself a “maverick” who can’t keep his foot out of his mouth. The DOW goes down 500 points. What does he say? “The fundamentals of our economy are sound.” Mr. McCain, you have the same problems as the Chiefs do on offense…good play, penalty, loss of yardage, loss of yardage, fumble or punt. You seldom advance your position because you say and do things without thinking them through. Are you so much of a “maverick” that you listen to no one? Or, perhaps you have not surrounded yourself with the right folks who can and will give advice. Either is bad and irresponsible. The good thing is that neither is President yet. We can all ridicule now. After all, this is the time to do some “modification of the software.” However, once one is elected, I promise you, I will be just as harsh on anyone who gripes, complains and fails to show the respect for the person who holds the office of President of the United States. We better all be together then. I’ll be back next month...God willing.