The Media’s Bias: McCain vs. Obama’s Church
First, does anybody know where McCain goes to church—if he goes at all?
Second, has the news media sent reporters to camp out at McCain’s church, if he has one?
Yet, the media has sent television reporters to “camp out” at Trinity Church of Christ every Sunday to film whatever preacher is preaching his or her sermons. Has the media sent television crews to Hillary’s church, if she has one?
Senator Obama has rejected and renounced his minister of long standing. The white priest that dissed Senator Clinton is not the pastor of Senator Obama. He merely preached a sermon at Obama’s church. Now, what is the media doing encroaching upon the private sanctuary of one candidate’s church? More to the point is why is the media encroaching on the private sanctuary of one’s candidate’s church while at the same time totally ignoring the others? Reverend Wright is no longer the pastor of Obama’s church and Obama has rejected and renounced him. There is absolutely no further justification for the media to violate the sanctity of church, except to try to tag Senator Obama with any and all future sermons preached at the church. Furthermore, the Senator was not attending church on the Sunday of the sermon by this white priest.
The news media, particularly Fox News, has set forth its private mission to film and distribute each and every sermon of Trinity Church of Christ. It might be time for churches to bar the media from its sanctuary. After all, McCain bars the media from his private fund-raising efforts and the church is at least as private as a fund-raising for a political office. This extreme scrunity is going to drive Obama out of that Church in violation of the First Amendment--the right to assembly and worship.
My recommendation is that all news media in the future be barred from all candidates’ churches since they are not attending for moral and spiritual guidance and uplifting, e.g. the purpose of attending the church.
---------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1,
2008. You can read his blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Appeasement: Fools, Knaves & Commentators
Appeasement is making political concessions to an adversary at the expense of a third party or country in an effort to avoid a confrontation with the appeased party. The concessions are generally at the expense of a weaker third party and thus considered to be unprincipled act or action by the appeaser.
It all began when President Bush labeled those in disagreement with him on foreign policy as “appeasers.”
First anybody who does not know the distinction or difference between the different positions on foreign policy between presidential candidates Senators Obama and McCain is a fool, that simple!
Next, anybody who saw Chris Matthews on Hardball make a fool and a knave out of Kevin, the conservative talk show blowhard ought to be careful when speaking about appeasement while in the presence of knowledgeable people.
Finally, I heard at least two commentators on CNN who obviously knew nothing about appeasement as used in politics since Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler forever changed the meaning of this rather benign word: Prior to Chamberlain’s misguided attempt to appease Hitler, the word appeasement had a positive image and was the policy of the British Government. In the instant case, Chamberlain sought to appease Hitler by agreeing to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the latter’s seizure of a chunk of Czechoslovakia. It turned out to be more than a mistake—it was a blunder, permitting Hitler to gain not just more territory, but more resources to then order his goose steppers to march through Poland.
Ever since Chamberlain’s blunder, the word has taken on a cynical connotation, and rightly so.
But it sure would be helpful if CNN and MSNBC would better vet their commentators so that these folks know the difference between calling Bush’s action “fair political game” and labeling his action for what it really was: an unprecedented attack on the domestic opposition while in a foreign country and before a foreign delegation—in this case the Israeli Parliament.
---------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1,
2008. You can read his blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.
It all began when President Bush labeled those in disagreement with him on foreign policy as “appeasers.”
First anybody who does not know the distinction or difference between the different positions on foreign policy between presidential candidates Senators Obama and McCain is a fool, that simple!
Next, anybody who saw Chris Matthews on Hardball make a fool and a knave out of Kevin, the conservative talk show blowhard ought to be careful when speaking about appeasement while in the presence of knowledgeable people.
Finally, I heard at least two commentators on CNN who obviously knew nothing about appeasement as used in politics since Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler forever changed the meaning of this rather benign word: Prior to Chamberlain’s misguided attempt to appease Hitler, the word appeasement had a positive image and was the policy of the British Government. In the instant case, Chamberlain sought to appease Hitler by agreeing to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the latter’s seizure of a chunk of Czechoslovakia. It turned out to be more than a mistake—it was a blunder, permitting Hitler to gain not just more territory, but more resources to then order his goose steppers to march through Poland.
Ever since Chamberlain’s blunder, the word has taken on a cynical connotation, and rightly so.
But it sure would be helpful if CNN and MSNBC would better vet their commentators so that these folks know the difference between calling Bush’s action “fair political game” and labeling his action for what it really was: an unprecedented attack on the domestic opposition while in a foreign country and before a foreign delegation—in this case the Israeli Parliament.
---------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1,
2008. You can read his blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Clinton, McCain and Obama on Mother's Day
Today the above referenced politicians were asked what Mother’s Day meant to them.
Here are their responses:
Clinton: Chelsea talked about how great a President her mother would make and how proud she was of her mother.
McCain’s mother talked about what a great President he’d make.
Obama did not mention one single word about being President. He talked about how he was influenced by his mother, how she instilled in him a values system that informs his outlook on life and he ended by complimenting Michelle, his wife, on what a wonderful mother she is.
What does that tell you about these folks?
In my opinion, it tells you that the Clintons and the McCains think only in political terms about everything. To Clinton and McCain everything seems to be political—even Mother’s Day. To Obama it’s all about his mother and wife—not a single political word about his being able to make a good President was uttered.
Among the three candidates, only Obama came off authentic. The other two apparently saw the photo op strictly in political terms. Beside the fact that he was the only one who answered the question what Mother’s Day means to him.
I wonder how long he will be in Washington before it grinds all of the authenticity out of him?
---------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.
Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.
Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1,
2008. You can read his blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.
Here are their responses:
Clinton: Chelsea talked about how great a President her mother would make and how proud she was of her mother.
McCain’s mother talked about what a great President he’d make.
Obama did not mention one single word about being President. He talked about how he was influenced by his mother, how she instilled in him a values system that informs his outlook on life and he ended by complimenting Michelle, his wife, on what a wonderful mother she is.
What does that tell you about these folks?
In my opinion, it tells you that the Clintons and the McCains think only in political terms about everything. To Clinton and McCain everything seems to be political—even Mother’s Day. To Obama it’s all about his mother and wife—not a single political word about his being able to make a good President was uttered.
Among the three candidates, only Obama came off authentic. The other two apparently saw the photo op strictly in political terms. Beside the fact that he was the only one who answered the question what Mother’s Day means to him.
I wonder how long he will be in Washington before it grinds all of the authenticity out of him?
---------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.
Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.
Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1,
2008. You can read his blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Is Barack Obama Held To a Different Standard?
At the onset of this long political season I thought that the media was fairly balanced in its coverage of each political candidate. This was until the “flag pin” idiocy came up. I have noticed that only Senator Obama is asked why he is not wearing a flag pin. Senators McCain and Clinton are never asked why they do not wear a flag pin. In fact, at the debates, Senator Obama was asked why he was not wearing a flag pin and nobody raised a hair about Senator Clinton’s not wearing a flag pin. In fact, NONE of the reporters asking the question were wearing a flag pin!
What are the reporters insinuating here? It can’t be that they are insinuating that a flag pin is proper attire for Mr. Obama, but not for them, not for Clinton and not for the very reporters asking the questions. In fact, they’re questioning Senator Obama’s patriotism because he does not wear a flag pin. The subject has been discussed ad nauseam on the right-wing radio programs and the mainstream media seems to be taking its clue from the right-fringe groups.
Then, there is the situation with Reverend Wright. Obama is somehow held to answer for every outrageous statements of this preacher who is simply full of himself. Yet, Senator McCain has not been required by the media to atone personally for every inane comment by the preachers who supports him.
The press applies the same double standard when it harps on the fact that Obama just can’t seem to appeal to the “blue collar” working class—code word for white uneducated former core democratic constituency. In fact, President Clinton only won forty-one percent of this very “blue collar” group-the exact percentage of this group that Obama won in Indiana. Yet, the press—and the commentator on CNN and MSNBC political talk programs—has now raised this “blue-collar test” to gospel. There have been predictions that Obama is in trouble if he can’t do something to win these folks over. The folks have been lost to the Democratic Party for at least a generation. Suddenly, Obama cannot win unless he does something that even President Clinton could not do in 1992—but he was elected.
Finally, I admire Senator Clinton, but could you imagine the howls that would be constant for him to quit the race were the math against him that Senator Clinton now has against her?
Double standard?
---------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1,
2008. You can read his blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.
What are the reporters insinuating here? It can’t be that they are insinuating that a flag pin is proper attire for Mr. Obama, but not for them, not for Clinton and not for the very reporters asking the questions. In fact, they’re questioning Senator Obama’s patriotism because he does not wear a flag pin. The subject has been discussed ad nauseam on the right-wing radio programs and the mainstream media seems to be taking its clue from the right-fringe groups.
Then, there is the situation with Reverend Wright. Obama is somehow held to answer for every outrageous statements of this preacher who is simply full of himself. Yet, Senator McCain has not been required by the media to atone personally for every inane comment by the preachers who supports him.
The press applies the same double standard when it harps on the fact that Obama just can’t seem to appeal to the “blue collar” working class—code word for white uneducated former core democratic constituency. In fact, President Clinton only won forty-one percent of this very “blue collar” group-the exact percentage of this group that Obama won in Indiana. Yet, the press—and the commentator on CNN and MSNBC political talk programs—has now raised this “blue-collar test” to gospel. There have been predictions that Obama is in trouble if he can’t do something to win these folks over. The folks have been lost to the Democratic Party for at least a generation. Suddenly, Obama cannot win unless he does something that even President Clinton could not do in 1992—but he was elected.
Finally, I admire Senator Clinton, but could you imagine the howls that would be constant for him to quit the race were the math against him that Senator Clinton now has against her?
Double standard?
---------------------------------------------------
©All Rights Reserved.Reproduction is permitted provided credit is given.Lenton Aikins, Ph.D., J.D.Dr. Aikins has traveled widely, lived abroad in Europe and Latin America, recently spending three years in Costa Rica as Director of a Spanish Language school. He holds a Ph. D. in Political Science from University of Southern California, a Juris Doctor in Law from Western State University, College of Law. He is the author of many articles and of While African Americans Slept: Leadership by Parasites, now available at: http://lentonaikins.com, and available in all bookstores July 1,
2008. You can read his blog: Go to: http://lentonaikins.com and click on blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
