by Tumult, Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:19:22 AM EDT
We have spent alot of time recently discussing how the media was unfair to one candidate or the other. But watching The Daily show interview with CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan we see how the media has failed at far more important tasks. How can we demanded an unbiased media reporting on individuals, when we allow the media to distort or unreport facts, that shape our understanding of major obstacles facing our nation. We cannot make accurate decisions as a Democracy without being properly informed. And the media has repeatedly failed in the task of keeping us accurately informed. I am more likely to see reporting on some of these important issues like Iraq and Afghanistan from the History Channel, or the Discovery Channel years from now than I am from 3 different 24 hour news channels. I feel I am getting more informed from a 20 minute show on Comedy Central than I would get from CNN/FOX/MSNBC.
We need to stop worrying about how unfairly our candidate has been treated, and start worrying about how unfairly our nation has been treated. Being too specific in our criticism allows them to get away with everything. We are blaming the media for overcooking our lunch as the house burns down around us.
I have no idea what I am doing wrong on the embed.
by Tumult, Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:31:11 PM EDT
This is ripped off from a Huffington post article, but for some reason it excites me more than the California ruling. A Texas appeals court dealt a blow to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy" by reinstating a lawsuit against the U.S. Air Force by Maj. Margaret Witt, who was discharged under the policy after 18 years of service. The judges ruled that discharge could not be automatic because a person was gay, That the military was required to provide proof, for each individual occurance, that morale and readiness was undermined. I do not have much to say about this. I am just excited about another liberal victory. And a victory for human rights! Here are some excerpts from the article I found on Huffington post, by Gene Johnson:
It is also the first appeals court ruling in the country that evaluated the policy through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.
But the Supreme Court's opinion in the Texas case changed the legal landscape, the judges said, and requires more scrutiny over whether "don't ask, don't tell" is constitutional as applied in individual cases.
Under the latest ruling, military officials "need to prove that having this particular gay person in the unit really hurts morale, and the only way to improve morale is to discharge this person," said Aaron Caplan, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state who worked on the case.
"When the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, the government must advance an important governmental interest ... and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest," Judge Ronald M. Gould wrote.
One of the judges, William C. Canby Jr., issued a partial dissent, saying that the ruling didn't go far enough. He argued that the Air Force should have to show that the policy itself "is necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest and that it sweeps no more broadly than necessary."
Gay service members who are discharged can sue in federal court, and if the military doesn't prove it had a good reason for the dismissal, the cases will go forward, Caplan said.
Another attorney for Witt, James Lobsenz, hailed the ruling as the beginning of the end for "don't ask, don't tell."
Great job ACLU and everyone else who stands up for the rights of the individual!
The military cannot automatically discharge people because they're gay.
by Tumult, Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:06:37 PM EDT
I am an Obama supporter, and this is directed at the Hillary Clinton supporter on this site. Why do you have nothing nice to say about Hillary Clinton? Why is nearly every Diary Recommended on this site in support of Hillary Clinton, either a call for gender solidarity or an attack on Obama?
Hillary Clinton has been billed as the policy candidate, strong on substance. Why has the policy and substance discussion either been absent, or intellectually dishonest? Why have we not had diaries on the Recommended List based on Clinton Position Papers, or other discussions based on her published statements? With her time as a public figure and her stong on policy image, I would think that these discussions would always favor her. So why don't we have them? Why does pro-Hillary on this site mean you have to attack Obama or talk about substanceless issues in support of Hillary Clinton. Chelsea has been the bright spot in the Clinton Campaign, because she talks about the positive policies of the Clintons without attacking Obama (that I have seen or heard). And for that reason she is the only one that has done anything to win me over.
Why don't we have more stories about the compassion, empathy, and caring of Hillary Clinton. These are all in opposition to the negative view a number of people (myself included) have about the Clintons (that they are calculating, and self-centered). These are the stories that would make many of us feel better about who Hillary Clinton is. That she has been mischaracterized by the media. I would think that you have to believe in the positive personality of Hillary Clinton to support her, so why do we not see diaries expounding on these things?
It may not seem like it at times. But as a Democrat I want to believe that we have no wrong choices with our candidates. I want to have a positive view of both Obama and Clinton. I was disappointed with the Clinton Campaign, because they went in a direction that reinforced the negative view I had of the Clinton Administration, and her Iraq War vote, rather than overcomming it. But why aren't Clinton supporters doing better on this site? Why do we have divisive diaries, instead of positive diaries explaining the good that Hillary Clinton represents to you? If you can only come up with attacks on Obama to support, Hillary Clinton, then I wonder how much you really believe in her. If you can only come up with "sexism" and gender bias reasons to support Hillary Clinton, then I have to wonder if you are not supporting the "what" more than the "who".