Miss-enlightened!

I was browsing the news today and came across this headline on the front page of foxnews.com: "President Obama does the right thing." This surprised me because Fox News is known for their anti-liberal sentiments.

My curiosity got the better of me so I decided to watch the short video (which is embedded below). I try not to watch Bill O'Reilly very much (he's the king of Fox News propaganda), and I almost immediately realized that it was a mistake to watch the video.

The video starts out on a positive note, but that only lasts for about 10 seconds, and it becomes clear that "President Obama does the right thing" is nothing more than a short living back-handed compliment.

Bill O'Reilly begins his trademark name calling by saying that liberals are "left-wing loons." He then says most "sane" Americans agree with him. Then more name-calling "These people are so stupid they're dangerous."

Once Bill O'Reilly begins to talk in terms that even "NBC news can understand," he begins the fear tactics. He says that drastic action had to be taken to prevent more "murder," a word that was obviously carefully planted.

O'Reilly continues to say that tough action was taken and "it worked, we were not attacked again." What he should have said is that terrorists did not attack us on "United States soil" again. It was unnecessary because we went to them, and there have been too many casualties (military and civilian) in the middle east to say that it has been a successful "tough action."

O'Reilly then calls anyone who questions the post 9/11 action an "ideological nut." He also says that anti-bush sentiments are "simply hateful" and based on nothing but the liberal need for "revenge." He says that Bush's mistakes are fodder for "haters who couldn't care less about America." These remarks blanket every individual who questions the Bush Administration as a bad person.

O'Reilly ends the clip with more fear tactics saying "We are living in a very dangerous time; people want to kill us." Then he declares once more that any opinions that differs from his are "Anti-American garbage."

So (under Bill O'Reilly's logic) if you didn't like how the Bush Administration went back on the Geneva Convention you are a bad person. If you think that Bush allowing war-profiteering was wrong that makes you "Un-American." If you even think that it wouldn't hurt anyone to just have an investigation- that makes you a hater.

If the Bush Administration didn't do anything wrong, then why are Republicans so hardcore against the public examining it? Republicans didn't feel like wanting to know whether or not Bill Clinton had a relationship with Monica Lewinski was Anti-American, and that wasn't nearly as serious as what some people think that the Bush Administration has tried to cover up.

Calling people names has never proven a point. Making people afraid is a functional way to control them, but does not prove a point either. Telling people that they are Anti-American if they disagree with you is not a good argument, and it does not make a news network "fair and balanced."



**Disclaimer** I am trying to make this blog as unbiased as possible, and since I spent this post analyzing conservative propaganda, I think it is only fair that I spend my next post analyzing liberal propaganda. If anyone has a good (and recent) example that I can use for my next post, please let me know.

Religious leaders attack politicians every week; they cite the bible as a source for why our elected officials are not doing a good job. Politicians use their "faith" to promote their own opinions on everything; race, education, global warming, taxes, the war on "terror"- the list goes on and on, and nothing is exempt from religious scrutiny.

Religion, in a lot of cases, seems to be just a way for people to promote their agenda without giving a logical reason. It also serves as a way for people to remove themselves from any personal responsibility (i.e. "it's in God's hands" and "God told me to.").

The bible is an easy tool to use if you want to prove a point because it says contradicting things about pretty much everything. If you want to retaliate against someone you can use the doctrine "an eye for an eye." If you want to preach forgiveness you can tell people to "turn the other cheek." These two statements give people carte blanche to do whatever they please when confronting someone in a disagreement. If the bible is really the answer to everything, then how can such discrepancies exist? Whether you believe in God and Jesus, they did not write the bible, man did (and we all know how corrupt man can be).

Many people feel like politics should not be influenced by religion, but unfortunately that constantly are. Our country was built by people who wanted to escape religious persecution, how have we strayed so far from that?

Thomas Jefferson, our 3rd president and the cocreator of many of our founding documents, was skeptical of what we gain by following religion. Some of the things he was quoted saying include:

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of
Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not
advanced one inch towards uniformity. "

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. "

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. "

"Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live. "

Another American founder that disapproved of religion influencing politics was Benjamin Franklin. Some of Franklin's quotes include:

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."

"The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason."

When people talk about returning to "good old fashioned values," why does it never include the sentiments of the men who built this country? I firmly believe that religion has no place in the political arena. For more information check out Religulous, it is a great documentary with a lot of information and interviews relevant to the topic.

I am a little disappointed with our politicians this week. Here are a handful of things that would warrant most toddlers a time out.

Vice President Joe Biden and Bush adviser Karl Rove are engaging in a passive aggressive name calling match. It doesn't have anything to do with the present, the future, or the Obama administration at all. It's all about George W. Bush and things that allegedly happened between him and Biden, and none of it has any hope of EVER being proved or disproved.

Next is the Gary Locke controversy. President Obama has promised up and down the street to keep big business, 3rd parties, and lobbyists out of the Whitehouse. Unfortunately, Obama recently appointed Locke to head the dept. of commerce. The problem with this is that Locke has received a ridiculous amount of campaign contributions from all sorts of major corporations, and he also owns an estimated 1/4 million dollars of Microsoft stock. The fact that he is a major investor in a company that he will definitely be dealing with in the commerce dept. seems a little unethical, and he has accepted so much money from other businesses that he undoubtedly has become too biased towards them to make the right decisions in his new position. I love Obama, and I was a big supporter of his presidential campaign, but this new development feels a little bit like the first time your child says "I hate you Mom!" You'd think it would make you feel angry, but in the end all you feel is sadness and disappointment.

This week congressmen continue to publicly pick apart Obama's budget proposal. I know that this is a "democracy," and we all have freedom of speech, and so many people want to know every centimeter of what the government does... but that being said, sometimes I wish that Congress would just STFU. Why can't they work together as a team, and then show a united front when they present us their final product? Do we really need to hear propaganda and minor nit picking that is deliberately done to stir up controversy?

If you have degrees from prestigious universities, have heavily coveted political positions, and are way past the point in your life when it is "acceptable" to have a midlife crisis; and you still haven't mastered the basic principles that most 5 year olds have (play nice with others, e.t.c.), then you need to grow up or get out of Washington! We elected you (or at least elected the people that appointed you), and you owe us more than petty bullshit.

• Pros: They tend to target specific interests, and most are free.


• Cons: Content may only be updated monthly, and is not very broad.


• Suggested Site: Time Magazine: Has the same great content as the print version, plus many cool interactive features, and an archive!

• Pros: Most are updated daily, or at least several times a week. Many are free and have established reputations as reliable news sources.


• Cons: Many run the same story over and over again, only changing slight details as new information comes in, which can make it time consuming to find stuff you haven't already read if you have been following a story for awhile


• Suggested Site: The New York Times: Very comprehensive, and easy to search.

8) Search Engine: We use them for just about everything, why not news?

• Pros: It's easy to get a lot of results if you have specific search terms to look for.


• Cons: If you don't know exactly what you want the results can be frustrating and hard to sift through. Some of the search results may direct you to very unreliable content.


• Suggested Site: Google.com: If you search through their news section you are only directed to well known news sources; it is a great way to see what all the popular channels are saying about a certain topic.
  

• Pros: You can check the news from the same sites where you get email, music, and countless other things.
  
• Cons: Because the sites don't specialize in news, some may be very lacking in content. Some also redirect you to other sites, which is annoying!


• Suggested Site: Yahoo! News: You can search by key terms within this section of yahoo. They also are well organized, and easy to browse. Yahoo mostly uses AP News stories which is great because they tend to be pretty unbiased.

• Pros: They can be great if you are trying to follow a specific topic, and it is nice to be able to store and read it from your inbox.


• Cons: Some are infrequent, and it's hard to find a good one that has broad content. RSS feeds also do pretty much the same thing, but better!


• Suggested Site: Page One: A great way to keep up with what's going on in the literature community (if you can get past their awkward formatting).
  

• Pros: There are so MANY of them, and they cover pretty much every topic! The good ones are easy to read, provide a lot of information, and are cleverly written.


• Cons: Some don't verify their content, and can have unreliable information, or are mostly opinion (opinion isn't always a bad thing though). Some are very infrequently updated.


• Suggested Site: Radical Middle: The author tries to be unbiased (though it is obvious that he leans a little liberal), the topics are interesting, and he very dependably updates it once a month.

4) Online TV: this is the greatest internet trend ever!

• Pros: Commercial breaks are much shorter than on an actual tv (average is 30 seconds), you can watch specific programs whenever you want regardless of your schedule, some shows even provide extra content that they don't release to cable/satellite, and most are free!


• Cons: If you don't have a fast internet connection you might have loading difficulties. Some require you to download media players which isn't convenient if you aren't using the site frequently, and some won't run on things like cellphones or PS3 internet browsers.
  
• Suggested Site: Hulu: They stream live presidential addresses and legally show new episodes of "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" as well as some other popular talk shows. You can also catch up on your favorite sitcoms from almost any tv channel.

3) Discussion Boards: do more with your news than just absorb it!

• Pros: You can put your two cents in about pretty much any topic you choose, and you can have a back and forth converstaion with many people who all have a different and interesting take on things.
  
• Cons: A lot of what people say is propaganda, not based on any facts, and not backed up by any source or reason. Also some boards might not be well moderated, and occasionally on some forums people resort to personal attacks. Most sites also require that you create an account to participate which might be a nuisance if you don't plan on frequenting the site.


• Suggested Site: US Politics Online: This is a great site if you like debate and you don't get offended easily.

• Pros: You get a lot of information packed into a small amount of time, most are free, and they are a great alternative for people who like to listen to someone talk instead of reading text.


• Cons: You have to shop around a lot to find one that is interesting AND also has reliable information. If you have a slow internet connection you may experience loading issues, and the podcast you like might not run in a supportable mode for you mobile device.


• Suggested Site: Sxephil: He crams a lot of cool news into podcasts that are normally less than 5 minutes. He is also very funny, and talks about stuff that you don't readily find in other news forums.

1) Audio Podcast: News you can take with you- ANYWHERE!

• Pros: Most of these are compatible with just about any mobile device imaginable, which gives you the ultimate "on the go" experience. You can also find them on many different topics. You can also listen to podcasts with more than one host, and it is common to have group podcasts, so you might get more dimensions to a story.

• Cons: Some of the hosts are "just along for the ride" and don't have much to offer, and "like minded" people tend to hang out together so you might get people just agreeing with each other on issues. Podcasts also tend to be very opinion based, and can suffer from the Bill O'Reilly "loudest voice wins" problem.

• Suggested Site: This one I do not have a suggestion for, look around and find one that is right for you :)

The one thing that all these sources have in common is that they are not killing trees in order to be produced. If you care about the environment, switching to online media is a great way to live in a way that supports your beliefs.

If you enjoy the news you should also learn about RSS feeds, they make it easy to be up to date.

With all these wonderful options, there is no reason for anyone to not stay informed!