Journalism: To Inform, Persuade or Entertain?

"Extra, extra! Read all about it!!


When I was going through the Methods of Instruction Course preparing to join DEA's Office of Training at Quantico, Virginia in 1989, I learned that virtually all public speaking can be broken down into three purposes: to inform (facts), to persuade (opinion), and to entertain. That is also very true in writing. Any reader should consider the purpose of the writing; is it to inform, persuade or entertain? Call it critical reading, if you will.

For example, let's take our daily newspapers. If you are reading the front page with the news of the past 24 hours, theoretically, the purpose is to inform. For example, the headline might read: Congressman Deadweed died yesterday at the age of 98. The ball scores would be another example: (Cubs lose 4-2). Entertainment would be something like the cartoons. Another example of writing for entertainment might be a novel. Usually, we don't learn anything from novels; we just read them for relaxation or pleasure.

Try this:

a- Senator Jake Snake is a jerk-fact or opinion?
This is opinion-even if you agree with the statement.

b- Senator Ebeneezer accused Senator Snake of being a jerk-fact or opinion?
This is a fact. Ebeneezer actually called Snake a jerk.

What the reader should always ask him/herself is this: Is this fact or opinion? Or is it a mixture of both? For example, let's go back to the newspaper. Below is my own adaptation of a comparison of two mythical articles from two mythical newspapers. This is not my own invention. I took it out of an English Language for Foreign Students textbook years ago. Unfortunately, I don't recall the book or the author, but suffice to say, the original text was written by another.

For purposes of this exercise, you should assume all the statements reported below are true.

Article in St Louis Times dated June 4, 2002

The city announced today that construction will begin next year on a new high school in West Peoria. The new school will accommodate 1700 new students and alleviate overcrowding at neighboring schools. To build the school, the city has acquired 30 acres of land. City officials say that the new school will also bring in about 200 new jobs.

Article in St Louis Herald dated June 4, 2002

The city announced today that construction will begin next year on a new high school in West St Louis. Students in the new school will be transferred from other schools around the St Louis area. To build the school, approximately 200 homes and businesses in a 30 acre area will have to be cleared or relocated. The city rejected suggestions that the school be built in the Snakehead Hts area of St Louis, which is currently uninhabited.

Again, assume that everything stated is factual. Which newspaper is in favor of the school, and which is opposed? Or are they both neutral?

The answer, of course, is obvious. My next question is this: Look familiar? Is it unusual for two competing newspapers in the same city with opposing editorial and political opinions to report the same story but with a different slant? Is this slanted reporting? On another level, can a TV or radio reporter giving the news employ similar tactics? Of course, they can, plus they have the advantage of using tone of voice and facial expression to send a message.

Let's be honest: Journalists are skilled writers, who have a good command of their language. They are fully capable of writing things which are perfectly true, but designed to leave the reader with a certain impression. What that results in is editorial writing on the front page.

In addition, headlines often do not match the text below. Why do writers and newspapers do this? They do it because they know that many readers browsing new stands only see the headline and don't bother to read the text. They may not even buy the paper. Example? How about Us Magazine's cover story on Sarah Palin entitled: Babies, Lies and Scandal?

The point is this: Our news media has an agenda. For most of the media establishment, that agenda is liberal. For a smaller part of the media, the agenda is conservative. What is important is for the news consumer is to carefully examine the reporting that he or she is getting and ask; fact or opinion? Fortunately, newspapers have a designated editorial section reserved for opinions. The bad news is that opinions can also find their way onto the pages reserved for facts.

Daily Kos Mocks 9-11 Remembrance

"All this 9/11 worship is ghoulish and downright silly. Some Brit on ______.com is even making fun of our pompous charade." Daily Kos.com (I have deleted the British blog site.)

The left-wing blog, Daily Kos, has sunk to a new low. As I write, on that blog appears a cartoon of two planes heading into the Twin Towers. The caption reads, "Happy Twin Towers Day". It was borrowed from a sick British blogger with the above Kos comment. (I have chosen not to show the cartoon. It is too outrageous.)

Reader responses to the Kos range from agreement to anger. Some readers praise the Brits for being more stoic and less hung-up on things like 9-11. Others admonish the Kos for showing the cartoon.

There is nothing funny about 9-11. No cartoon about what happened that day can be considered tasteful. The cartoon that the Kos chose to publish and praise is tantamount to spitting on the graves of the 3,000 people who were slaughtered that day.

I hope that curious readers who browse the Daily Kos and read its political opinions will also consider its association with this infamous cartoon. The editor, Markos Moulitzos, is the same character who made light of the murder of American contractors in Iraq whose bodies were hung from a bridge. "Screw 'em", said Moulitzos. Now this.

This is the same man that has appeared on Keith Olbermann's "Countdown Show" as a commentator. I wonder what Olbermann (who just excoriated John McCain and the RNC for using 9-11 images at their convention) has to say about his pal's embracing of this cartoon.

This past year, the Democratic presidential contenders including Barack Obama attended the Daily Kos annual convention. I wonder what they have to say about the Kos now. Will anybody from the media ask them? I doubt it.

The Daily Kos and its editor are beneath contempt. They are sick, twisted people. As stated above, I have chosen not to reproduce the cartoon or reveal the British blog site that produced it. As for you "Free Speech" devotees, please don't bother me with your lame arguments. Go see the cartoon yourselves at the Daily Kos. You won't see it here.

Guess Who's Outraged Now-USC Muslim Student Association

Recently, I reported on the decision of the University of Southern California to order the Muslim Student Association to remove a controversial hadith from its (university sponsored) web site.

Predictably, the MSA has responded with outrage.

A statement issued by the Muslim Student Union at USC suggested that the hadith was being taken out of context, and called the school's decision to remove it from the website "unprecedented and unconscionable." (Israel Today- September 12, 2008)

Taken out of context? I will again post it and let the reader decide.

“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him….”

Question for the MSA at USC: What part of that was taken out of context? Specifically what words are taken out of context? What words are misunderstood?

I recently received a response to my original post from a certain Mohammad attaching an article whose thesis is that hadiths are subject to debate among Islamic scholars. Fine, but my point is this: Whatever the history behind the hadith, the central point is that the Muslim Student Association at USC chose to put it up on their university website.

So, as far as I am concerned, the MSA can be outraged all they want. They can have CAIR file a lawsuit on their behalf. The wording in the hadith is unacceptable in a civilized and pluralistic society. We cannot allow this kind of ignorant, hateful language that advocates murder against our Jewish fellow citizens. If these students want to propagate this kind of language and sentiment, there are other countries where they can go and live-not here.

Another Hollywood Airhead Against Palin

"So what do you think about the world housing crisis, Pam?"


Move over, Matt Damon. Yet another Hollywood "star" has spouted off about Sarah Palin. And who is the latest "mover and shaker" to come out against the Governor of Alaska? Why it's none other than that noted thinker, Pamela Anderson. Asked this week at an event in Toronto what she thought of Palin, the Canadian turned American bimbo thought carefully for a moment, scratched her head, creased her brow and carefully explained:, "I can't stand her. She can suck it."

Well, there you have it, folks-straight from the mouth of that noted judge of character-you know, Tommy Lee, Kid Rock, Rick Soloman and whatever other creeps she has married.

That's all I care to say about Pamela Anderson except-keep talking. The more these nitwits keep showing their ignorance, the better our chances are in November.

Last comment: Ten Pamela Andersons couldn't make one Sarah Palin.

News Media vs Palin

A lot is being made of Charles Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin in Alaska. The media is widely describing Palin as "awkward" in the interview. That may be true, but, at the same time, it seems to me that the media (including Gibson) is twisting some statements made by Palin. For example, Palin recently gave a talk in her church as her son was scheduled to be sent to Iraq. In the AP reporting of her remarks, her wording was edited ever so slightly, but in a way as to change the meaning of what Palin actually said. Gibson ran with the AP version, insisting to Palin that he was using her exact words (a misstatement).


GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

Below is what Palin actually said and the AP version. (You need to read both versions carefully.):


“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

This is the AP version:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a “task that is from God.”…
“Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,” she said. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan.”

Palin did not say that the Iraq mission was "a task that is from God". What she said was to pray THAT our leaders are sending (US soldiers) on a task that is from God.

Furthermore, what point was Gibson trying to make? That Palin is some sort of Jesus freak?

Then there is the controversy over her answers regarding Russia and Georgia. Here is the exchange below:


GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

GIBSON: Let's start, because we are near Russia, let's start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals.That's why we have to keep an eye on Russia.


And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

Sarah Palin on Russia:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We've learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

Last night or the night before, I don't remember exactly, I watched a quick news break on MSNBC, where the announcer (I don't even know his name.) reported solemnly that Palin had told Gibson that the US may have to go to war with Russia if Georgia is admitted to NATO. Well, head for the bomb shelters, folks!

If you read the above transcript, Palin obviously gives a long and convoluted answer to a most difficult question. Talk about context. If you read the above transcript, it is obvious that Palin is looking for every possible solution to deal with the issue short of advocating actual war. Yet, she acknowledges, in response to Gibson's prodding, the difficult situation that would exist if Russia invaded Georgia as a NATO member. ("Perhaps, so.") Several media organizations have jumped on that two word part of her response and left out everything else she said. I will leave it to the reader to decide if Palin really wants to go to war with Russia over Georgia.

I don't object to reporters asking hard questions of Palin since there is legitimate debate over her experience and qualifications for the office of Vice-President. Gibson and George Stephanopoulos did, in fact, ask hard questions of Barack Obama during one of the debates, a refreshing change for which they were excoriated by their colleagues and the left. I do think, however, that the media has a responsibility not to twist words in order to change meaning and context, both when they are asking questions and reporting answers. Of course, that is wishful thinking.

But congratulations to Charles Gibson. He is now back in the good graces of his mainstream media colleagues.

When the Government Gets Involved in Charity

"...and don't forget-we want 100% participation."


During the current election, we are hearing a lot about the role of government in helping out needy people. it, of course, leads to philosophical questions about the role of government and the issue of taxes to achieve that end. Many (including me) argue that using taxes and income redistribution to help out the less fortunate actually decreases the amount of disposable income that Americans have to give to charity. In the area of volunteer work, Barack Obama has said the volunteerism is impossible without government involvement. I profoundly disagree.

This whole debate brings back memories of my 25 years of government service-not including the military (DEA). Specifically it reminds me of a government program called the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC). This annual event, operated by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), is a warning sign of what happens when government gets involved in worthy activities.

Let me begin by posting the introductory statement of the CFC's own website:

"The mission of the CFC is to promote and support philanthropy through a program that is employee focused, cost-efficient, and effective in providing all federal employees the opportunity to improve the quality of life for all.

CFC is the world's largest and most successful annual workplace charity campaign, with more than 300 CFC campaigns throughout the country and internationally to help to raise millions of dollars each year. Pledges made by Federal civilian, postal and military donors during the campaign season (September 1st to December 15th) support eligible non-profit organizations that provide health and human service benefits throughout the world. The Director of OPM has designated to the Office of CFC Operations responsibility for day-to-day management of the CFC.

This website will be of interest to anyone interested in workplace giving. It is tailored to meet the particular needs of the Federal donor, CFC Campaigns, and charities participating in or considering participation in the CFC.Campaigns, donors and charities can enter through a portal above or navigate by topic with the sidebar links on your left. If you have comments or questions, please contact the Office of the CFC Operations at cfc@opm.gov.

The Office of Personnel Management announced new regulations governing the Combined Federal Campaign on November 20, 2006. These regulations are effective immediately."

Sounds good, right? Let me explain to you how it works.

Each year, from September 1st-December 15th, every government agency is involved in a drive to solicit contributions from its employees. Each government office designates a CFC coordinator to operate the contribution drive. Pamphlets are printed and distributed to all government employees. The pamphlet contain the names of hundreds of approved charitable organizations to which the employee may designate that his/her contributions be given.

In addition, this is a top-down operation. The President himself will send out a message urging employees to give. Down the chain of command it goes; similar messages from cabinet chairs to agency heads to office heads-until it reaches the lowly worker bees. A lot of time, money and resources go into this drive every year.

Now, here's the rub. What is the goal of the CFC every year? In addition to monetary goals, the goal every year is "100% participation". That means that, while contributions are "strictly voluntary", everyone is expected to give something. That also comes down from the top. Agency heads tell their regional, district and office heads that the goal is 100%. Within offices, group supervisors get the same message. In other words, if you are a supervisor, you are expected to motivate every person under your supervision to contribute.

100% participation.

In fact, supervisors know that their annual performance evaluations will be affected by whether or not their underlings met the 100% goal. Starting to get the message?

If any of you readers are veterans, you may recall being "asked" to buy US Savings Bonds in the military. Those were also voluntary, but try not buying them. I remember one DEA colleague of mine recalling his service time in Basic Training when he initially declined. He was assigned KP every day until he changed his mind. (I don't know how it works today in the Armed Forces.)

Now here is one of my personal stories, which is absolutely true. Back in the 1990s, a couple of years before my retirement (ca 1993), our group supervisor called our group in for a meeting, in which she asked us all to contribute to the CFC. (It was the contribution season.) She then stated that if anyone was unwilling to contribute, she would make up that employee's contribution with her own personal money. That is an indication of the pressure she felt to ensure that her group met the 100% goal expected of her.

The same year, our office received a flyer from the DEA office in New York City. It seemed that one of their agents had a son who was stricken with a serious, life-threatening illness. Due to some insurance complications, the agent was being forced to transport his son to another city for expensive treatment, all out of pocket. His group supervisor was leading an informal agency-wide drive to ask for contributions.

A few days later, an agency-wide memo was sent out from DEA HQs. If I recall correctly, it was from DEA's Chief Counsel Office. In this memo, the New York Office was instructed to suspend its solicitation for funds due to some bureaucratic technicality. Similarly, DEA employees were instructed not to send funds to New York. Finally, the memo stated that no further action regarding this drive could be taken UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF THE COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN!!

Since I happened to know the group supervisor in New York, I called him to discuss the matter. He confirmed to me the substance of the memo from HQs. I then asked him if he thought the CFC considered the New York drive as being competition for donations.

"That's the way it looks to me", he replied.

I then told him my check would be in the mail that same day.

My point to all this is not to make the case that contributions through the CFC are not a good thing. My point is that charity should be left to the people. The American people are the most generous on the planet and will readily give to worthy causes when they are able. When government gets involved, the inevitable happens. It becomes a numbers game, resources are devoted to things that have nothing to do with the agencies' missions, people's careers and performance are judged by meeting goals, and the bureaucracy takes over with numerous unintended consequences. Coersion defeats the very idea of charity. It is just another area where government should not be involved. They can only screw it up.

Does this have any implication for the idea of government taking over other things like Health Care, for example?

I'll let you be the judge.

Independent Task Force on Anti-Semitism at the University of California at Irvine

With the permission of Ted Bleiweis, Director of the Orange County Independent Task Force on Anti-Semitism, I am attaching their report on the situation at the University of California at Irvine involving anti-Semitic activities by the Muslim Student Union. It is lengthly, but it bears reading. It is a damning indictment of the MSU at UCI and the negligence of the university.

The pdf of this attachment can be found at:

http://octaskforce.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/orange-county-task-force-report-on-anti-semitism-at-uci.pdf

(I am still learning how to do the link whereby the reader merely needs to click the URL. Once I get that down, I will update this post.)

Keith Olbermann Goes Nuclear-Again

"Buuushed!"


Last night, while I was working on my blog and looking for new material, I flipped on Keith Olbermann on MSNBC for a few yuks as I occasionally do. Keith never disappoints me. He always gives me something new to write about. Last night was no exception.

First, Keith wasted the first quarter of his show discussing the "Great Lipstick" issue with two of his regular house guests, Newsweek's Richard Wolffe and the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson. Both are irritatingly smug individuals, and Robinson has a bad verbal tic otherwise known as chuckling every time he is responding to one of Keith's teed-up rhetorical questions.

Of course the thesis of Keith's dialogues with Wolffe and Chuckling Gene is always the same: Bush is bad, McCain is bad, the Republicans are bad, and now, Sarah Palin is bad. What else is new? The conversation, predictably led to Gov. Palin and the "Troopergate" scandal, in which she supposedly tried to get Alaska cop Mike Wooten, her former brother-in-law fired. While making a passing reference to the idea that Wooten was not exactly a good guy, it was never mentioned that he had tasered his 10-year-old step-son. (he should have been fired.) At any rate, once they were spent, Keith proceeded to tuck Wolffe and "Chuckles" into bed for another night so they would be fresh for tomorrow night's show.

Keith then proceeded to hand out his nightly Worst Person in the Wooorld awards. Perennial winner, Bill O'Reilly bagged another bronze on this evening for his ever-expanding trophy room.

But the tour de force of the evening was another one of Keith's 10 minute sermons to end the show. And the theme was? Evil John McCain, of course. It seems Keith was outraged by McCain and the RNC Convention using images of 9-11, and McCain's supposed "secret method" of getting bin Laden. Like the crescendo of Tschaikovsky's 1812 Overture, Olbermann's tone rose in fury as he accused McCain of using 9-11 as an election prop. He all but accused McCain of "protecting" bin Laden by not putting his plan into operation now-thus allowing the terrorist mastermind to remain free.

As I sat there watching Keith blowing his lid yet again, he couldn't help thinking: How can this jerk treat McCain like he was dirt given the candidates life history-not that it makes him above criticism, but McCain has given more to his country than Mr Olbermann has ever dreamed of. But that will never deter a rabid ideologue like Keith Olbermann, who is still "resting on his laurels" after his fawning interview of Barack Obama.

I also thought to myself, "he's really getting worked up. Given his demotion at MSNBC, is this going to be the night when Keith pulls out a gun on camera, declares, 'I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore' and.....?"

Whatever grown-ups are still there at NBC, they must be thinking to themselves, "and we let this guy act as anchor for the conventions?"

Bizarre. Truly bizarre.

Let's Play "Name Those Benchwarmers"

"How's your leg feelin' now, Chris?"


Who are the two figures sitting on the dugout steps?

a Two Chicago Cubs waiting to blow another pennant
b Two New York Yankees too old to play anymore
c Two lousy players demoted to the bench for poor performance
d Two lousy MSNBC anchors named Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann demoted for poor performance
e Any of the above

The Intellectual Musings of Matt Damon

"It's like really scary, you know?"


My father used to have a ready retort when someone he was talking with would quote some third party individual's opinion about something. His question would always be: "Where does he tend bar?"

Such is my reaction to the never-ending opinions being offered out of Hollywood to us common folk. Now we can add "action hero" actor Matt Damon to that ever-expanding list of Hollywood know-nothings who are decrying the choice of Sarah Palin as John McCain's VP running mate. It seems this latter-day Lionel Barrymore, who has made his career starring in nonsensical movies about some guy named Jason Bourne (or was it Jeremy) and the evil CIA, has "misgivings" about the choice of Palin and her potential to be president in the future.

Sprinkled with a liberal dose of "you knows" and "reallys", Damon has explained to an AP reporter why Palin's candidacy is a "joke".

"I think there is a really good chance that Sarah Palin could be president. And I think that's a really scary thing because I don't know anything about her. I don't think in 8 weeks I'm going to know anything about her....."

Fousesquawk comment: That's because you are a know-nothing, Damon.

"...I know that she was a mayor of a really, really small town. And she's Governor of Alaska for less than two years. I just don't understand...I think the pick was made for political purposes, but in terms of governance, it's a disaster."

Fousesquawk comment: Well, Mr Political Science Professor, certainly political considerations went into the pick. Welcome to the real world, genius. Of course, Professor Damon doesn't weigh in on Barack Obama's experience as a "community organizer", invisible term as state senator and less than one term as a do-nothing US Senator-Oh, sorry. He has done one thing as US Senator-run for president.

But there is more:

"You do the actuary tables, and there's a one out of three chance, if not more, that McCain doesn't survive his first term and it will be President Palin. And it really....we were talking about it earlier...and it's like a really bad Disney movie. The hockey mom. "I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska." And she's the president. And it's like she's facing down Vladimir Putin, you know, and using folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink. It's absurd. It's totally absurd. And I don't understand why more people aren't talking about how absurd it is. It's a really terrifying possibility. The fact that we've gotten this far and we're that close to this being a reality is crazy, crazy.

Fousesquawk comment: "We were talking about it earlier.." Who? You and George Clooney?

Bad Disney movie? How about a bad Damon movie?

And why not this: "I'm just a community organizer"?

"I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago, that's an important... I want to know that. I really do.....because she's going to have the nuclear codes, you know."

Fousesquawk comment: No, Matt, she doesn't. Now you really know.

Enough. I can't take any more.

It's sad that so many reporters and so many people really care about what these Hollywood flakes think about the world. We already know that 99% of them want the Democrats to win. They are entitled to spout off all they want, and we are entitled ro respond. The fact of the matter is opinions of celebrities are worth nothing more than the opinion of the local bartender.

Or, as another great philosopher once said, "Opinions are like noses; everybody has one." (Only he didn't say noses.)

The Dems/Media Going After Sarah Palin

"It's ok, officer. I'm an "opposition researcher".


Some thoughts on the on-going Sarah Palin phenomenon:

I might be willing to give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt on that infamous "lipstick on a pig" remark he made the other day. Yet, if you look at the reaction of his supporters behind him, they sure seemed to take it as a reference to Palin as they laughed out loud, rose and cheered.

Meanwhile, it has been revealed that Team Obama has sent an army of 30 lawyers, investigators and "opposition researchers" to Alaska to dig up anything and everything on Palin. (I wonder if those are the same lawyers Team Gore sent to Florida in 2000 to challenge the absentee ballots of troops serving overseas in places like Bosnia deuring the recount.) But I digress. Look at what they are coming up with in Alaska.

Palin, as mayor, reportedly pressured the Wasilla librarian to ban certain books from the local library. It has never been disclosed what those books were. No wonder. In reality, it seems that Palin asked the librarian in general terms how she (the librarian) would feel about the idea of certain books being banned as "offensive". The librarian reportedly responded that she would oppose any such measure as a violation of freedom of speech. At this point, Palin accepted the viewpoint of her librarian and dropped the idea.

Palin also is under investigation for supposedly dismissing the director of Public Safety in Alaska for not firing her former brother-in-law, State Trooper Mike Wooten, who was involved in a nasty divorce from the Governor's sister. What most news articles are not mentioning is that Wooten, among other transgressions, reportedly tasered his 10-year-old step-son. As a former law enforcement officer, that sure sounds like a firing offense to me. And has not the former director come out and publicly stated that Palin never personally pressured him to fire Wooten? Minor detail.

In addition, Palin has been accused of wanting to have Creationism taught in public schools in Alaska. Well, not exactly. She has only advocated that pupils be allowed to debate both sides of the argument in class.

Then there is the item (picked up on by the Washington Post) that Palin claimed per diem from the State of Alaska while overnighting in her Wasilla home. Again, not exactly. What she did was submit a voucher for time spent outside of her Juneau (the State Capitol) office, something entirely authorized. For per diem, she claimed $60 for meals. In the lodging section, she claimed zero with the explanation that she was staying in her personal residence.

I won't even go into the trash about her family, with which we are all familiar. What is that going to show us-that the Palins are a typical modern-day American family coping with the problems of our crazy society?

What seems clear to me is that Sarah Palin is striking a chord with average Americans as a fresh new face from the frontier West-vastly different from the old Eastern establishment. This leads me to my final point, which is directed to the McCain campaign: The press is now jumping on a new issue. This is, that since convention night, Palin has continued to give the same speech, and that, furthermore, press access to her has been limited as she travels with McCain. To that I say; let Sarah be Sarah. Give her new speeches and let her interact with the press. If she makes misstatements or her words are twisted by the press, so be it. You chose this woman for many reasons, and the public is embracing her, just as her constituents in Alaska embrace her. The last thing you want to do now is let the media present her as a packaged phony, which they will surely do if allowed to. If you trust Palin with the VP slot, trust her to be herself.

Don't worry about the press, Hollywood and the Democratic "opposition researchers". The American people are seeing this for what it is.

Charles Rangel's Problems

Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) has found himself under a cloud of suspicion for a number of financial issues. First and foremost, Rangel's rental property on the coast of the Dominican Republic has resulted in a controversy over $75,000 in rental income that he must now pay taxes on to IRS. (He is re-doing his tax returns to pay taxes on the income.) In addition, questions are being asked about rental apartments in New York City that Rangel uses as well as alleged requests he has made of corporations and foundations to fund an academic center that bears his name.

As a result of the ethical questions, Republicans are asking that Rangel be removed as chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

I am not passing judgement on the controversy surrounding Congressman Rangel. I have no idea what the facts are. I only wish to point out two things about Rangel in his life and political career.

First, Charles Rangel is a distinguished combat veteran of the Korean War, who served with valor.

Second, I remember as a DEA agent, Rangel was known as a strong supporter of our agency and its mission.

Those two aspects of his resume have always led me to respect Congressman Rangel-even though I often disagree with his positions. In spite of my disagreements with him, I have never considered Rangel to be a radical leftist. I consider him to be an American patriot, which he has proved.

As far as the allegations against Rangel, I can only say that the chips should fall where they may. I do hope, however, that his errors are simply mistakes, and that my respect for him will not be lessoned.