Friday, September 19, 2008

And now, for something sad

You may have seen special products or charity items for the Susan G. Komen foundation recently at a number of locations. Every year, the "race for the cure" comes to California and the San Diego area, and you see the color pink everywhere. In my humble opinion, this is one of the best foundations to donate time, money and energy to, and I encourage everyone to do at least one thing to promote or support this organization.

So, each year, I find myself buying items I normally would not purchase, or would normally not pay the higher price for, because I want to be able to do something. I always support a walker in the local marathon each year, and a few years ago, I participated myself. I plan on doing the same next year.

Last night, I went to the local supermarket to pick up some items for a potluck lunch. There was a donation card pack right next to the credit card swipe machine. For one buck you fill out who your donation is in "memory of". I paid for my purchases and was surprised that the cashier did not make her pitch for a donation. So, I took a dollar out and pointed to the card.

The look on the woman's face was one of shock, then gratitude. She asked me if I really wanted to buy one, then a big smile crossed her face and she said thank you! We then chatted for a minute since there was no line. She has been a cashier for about 17 years and she has noticed that year after year (about the last 6-7 that she recalls), people donate less, and seem much more selfish and self-centered. They are often abrupt with her when they say no to a donation. She said that I was the first person who donated in her shift that day and the first who has offered rather than waited for her to say something in over a week.

Does that strike anyone as sad, yet very telling of the world today? Have we reached the point where a buck is too much to ask for? Where people cease to be charitable? Where the pain of someone else is to be ignored? I am afraid of what we as humans have become.

It's all about race, man!

I told a co-worker about 3 months ago that it would come down to this.

If you don't vote for Obama, you are a racist.

It's that simple. There is no other explanation.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

The liberal media







vs.





About a year ago, I purchased a magazine subscription from some program. I forget who it was for and what it was for. The choices of magazines were pretty slim and since I am not an avid hunter, fisherman, machinist or carpenter, the best of the remaining choices was "Time" magazine. So, I signed up for I think the two year selection and soon the familiar red bordered magazine cover showed up in my mailbox.

I have been dealing with some personal issues, so I was behind on my magazine reading for the last few weeks. However, I finally had the chance to read The 9/1/08 and 9/8/08 magazines, which dealt with the two major political parties and their candidates.

If you ever wanted to see an example of media bias, you simply need to read these two selections and compare them. The Democratic party issue and discussion of Barack Obama is full of the same tired stories of Obama. His upbringing and unique family unit, his community activism, and his political ascent. His wife and family are also discussed. The various articles deal with typical Democrat issues and they gloss over any real controversy.

Now compare it to the second in the series. The Republican party issue is full of the same, tired, information the liberal media spews out. McCain, the rowdy young man. McCain, the graduate near the bottom of his class. McCain, the womanizer. McCain, the terrible husband who has a failed marriage. McCain ,the maverick in politics who is mean and grumpy and cannot get along with anyone. McCain, who is like George Bush despite the issue actually pointing out all the differences between them. Oh, and let's not forget, McCain, the POW (which does not actually mean anything to anyone). The rest of the articles deal with Republican issues and how screwed up America is right now (strongly hinting at it being ALL the fault of the Republican party).

I will a few issues that I would highlight to show some extreme differences that I found, and to make it easier for you, dear reader.

First and foremost, the article about McCain does mention his accomplishments as a public servant, but in a backhanded way. Despite examples of success in the passage of bills and reaching across the isle to work with the Democrats, the magazine constantly goes back again and again to describe McCain as uncompromising, boorish, even downright mean.

Meanwhile, Obama's experience (or lack thereof) is glossed over, focusing on his time as a community organizer and placing a lot of emphasis from the perspective of his wife. What is most amusing is that the article points to his current campaign as evidence of his "experience", and that he is able to run a pretty good campaign. Somehow, this equates to experience to lead an entire country. This argument has been used a few times in recent memory, so I guess I should not be surprised.

Second, Time discusses in detail McCain's wild youth and his family, going so far as to discuss his father and grandfather's personalities and calling his father and alcoholic. McCain is described as a brawler, a womanizer, and a party animal. His prior transgressions are laid out in detail. Meanwhile the Democratic issue says nothing of Obama's young trusts while in college, the parties he likely went to, and most notably, his admissions of drug use and participation. In fact, his past is barely examined at all, while McCain's was thoroughly explored.

Further, we hear nothing about Obama's family, save for how great his wife and kids are. Nothing about a father who abandoned him. A mother who married multiple men and who also ultimately abandoned him to pursue her career while he lived with loving grandparents. Now, I get that his Mom was a free spirit, and that she decided to pursue a career and dream in largely a man's world. Yet, while we celebrate this idea, I note how current V.P. candidate Sarah Palin is ridiculed for her choice to run for an elected position and how she is obviously "abandoning" her family for her own personal goals. And while I am thinking of this, why has this not been analyzed at all?

These are just a few examples of an obviously slanted viewpoint. And they say there is no media bias!