Should media hosts allow their guests with clear political agendas to regurgitate or even introduce their obviously unproductive “talking points”? This was the question that occurred to me while the nation muddled through the recent Senator Reid debacle. While the nation huddled around this non-issue from the freshly-available novel, Game Change, by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, the REAL issues in the book received little scrutiny. Hell, even I had to weigh in with an article on the Reid issue just to set the record straight.

One of the REAL issues in the book were former President Bill Clinton’s alleged remarks to the late Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy – referring to then-Senator Barack Obama – that, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.” Another REAL issue was the allegation that the Democratic leadership RECRUITED a hesitant Barack Obama to run for President, fearing a loss by Senator Hillary Clinton in the general election.

So my question is this: Given the wasted time and effort taken on Sen. Reid’s remarks – to the extent that America is now tired of talking about the book, Game Change – should the media even allow such red-herring issues to be discussed? Should they cut off the “talking points” the way Ed Schultz of MSNBC is prone to do? Wasn’t the coverage of Reid’s comments along-side of the relatively sparse coverage of the REAL issues in the book politically orchestrated to soften the blow of the REAL issues? And didn’t the ploy succeed? Isn’t America now so tired of hearing about Game Change that the REAL issues are destined to receive little scrutiny? If more media personnel were like Ed Schultz, wouldn’t we waste less time on the trivial? And is it any wonder that Mr. Schultz has been recently courted for a political career? Since the politicians have a hard time beating him, does it surprise anyone that recruitment would be a strategy employed? What are your thoughts?

The following post is from an email sent to me by one of my closest friends. It was one of those things that you get through numerous parties such that finding out the original author is nearly impossible. Still – even without an ability to give attribution to the writer – I felt that this article might engage conversation. So, without further ado:

What My Brother-in-Law Thinks About The Threat of Socialism

People who complain about the threat of socialism remind me of the man from Virginia who went to college on the GI Bill and bought his first house with a VA loan. When a hurricane struck he got federal disaster aid. When he got sick he was treated at a veteran’s hospital. When he was laid off he received unemployment insurance and then got a SBA loan to start his own business. His bank funds were protected under federal deposit insurance laws. When he retired he went on Social Security and Medicare. The other day he got into his car, drove the federal interstate to the railroad station, parked in the public lot, took Amtrak to Washington and went to Capitol Hill to ask his congressman to get the government off his back.

What are your thoughts on this? Let’s talk.

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the dichotomy attenuate to the notions that: a) America should escalate her military presence in Afghanistan, but b) her inner city youth need to find nonviolent ways of addressing their differences with others? Both of these scenarios represent subsets of the larger sociological discipline of conflict resolution. And since the methodologies of dealing with the two scenarios are “mutually exclusive”, “contradictory”, and “sharply distinguished or opposed” they undoubtedly fit the definition of a dichotomy. But should they be dichotomous or should we resolve both scenarios similarly?

I believe that principles are principles. If you follow specific ideology in one circumstance, you follow it in another. What’s your take?

It seems that just about anybody can become a pastor these days. Now “Pastor” Steve Anderson has the audacity to say that he hates Barack Obama and that he prays for his death. He quotes the 58th Psalm as justification and has even gone so far as to say that if someone kills the President, it wouldn’t be murder. I just had to post a video response to this rhetoric on YouTube (displayed below).

The REAL problem is that few pastors have openly condemned this guy. I mean, when renegade blacks run amok, all black leaders are expected to condemn them. When Democratic party members run amok, the party leaders are expected to condemn them. Republicans, Muslims, cops, lawyers, etc. ALL face the same scrutiny. So is it unreasonable to expect pastors to set the record straight when someone suggests that their demonic stance is indicative of DIVINE PROVINCE???

Kill