Have you ever seen this YouTube Channel called “LiberalViewer“?
I personally would aspire toward having a blog more to the nature of the work of LiberalViewer in days to come.
See for yourself.
Have you ever seen this YouTube Channel called “LiberalViewer“?
See for yourself.
This was an excellent Address on Health Care by President Obama. All significant issues were cogently addressed, but I found the president should have expounded further upon the specifics of the budget and the concept of “deficit neutrality.”
Perhaps it is my own failure in understanding but I do not fully understand this notion as it pertains to health care.
I also think this clear explanation was needed much closer to the onset of the national debate instead of at this point in time and also hopefully prior to the town hall debate setting, but I see the issue of Health Care Reform as being underlined and placed in the foreground.
Those who chose not to listen and refute every word Obama speaks will most likely continue to do so.
The issue of a ‘failure to sell‘ Health Care Reform and explain the proposal is put to rest, in my view.
Then expound upon some line of thought in some blog and someone comments-back: “Keep it short and sweet.” Sometimes there is none of that. Sometimes I run out anything and we end up with the new and famous and amazing micro-blogging (Tweet)!
The ‘protectors’ of the freedom of speech and ’balanced’ media have opened up a talking-back-at-you website. They let my liberal stuff through just like anyone else.
This site has morphed from comment moderation taken to new tyrannical heights and has landed right back where all the internet is, sanity. Though I’ll the first to admit that almost every post on the website is written by a liberal.
I don’t live in the UK but this news-site has always caught my eye. I just think they have better articles than a lot of American media to discuss or reference.
I might have promoted you and you never knew it. I try and point out anything I think is great in both credible source and just pure internet source. If you have a blog I am the one who just randomly spread it around on Facebook or maybe Stumble.
I have no idea why people do this but YouTube comment threads often become beyond the limits of sanity in terms of length, and the dialogue goes beyond any measure of civility in about 90% of the cases. I can barely ever help myself, I’ve allowed myself to childish and tawdry while speaking to vile and hostile people. If you like car-crashes and Jerry Springer … you might want to just read the comments under a video without even bothering with whatever the original post was.
It’s just my point of view.
That it all fits in the same pale. One big not-so happy family of internet traffic.
The only credibility on most internet posting is attached to the credibility of the domain combined with the author. I’ll listen to anybody, but I’m not about to try and attach any level of credibility to myself. This all just my opinion. But I think some certain few out there somehow manage to get opinion and real news confused in all the commotion of the New Media.
Left versus Right political divides seem to be at all time highs.
We live in two different spheres of media and politics where there is no common ground whatsoever. Even within defining the past, and simple definitions of words, there is no mutual understanding between groups.
The Liberal versus Conservative Debate cannot take place under these conditions, and ultimately does nothing but aggravate social divisions. Each side blames the other for this via biased media and partisan rancor.
Partisanship is inevitable. Each side must strive to avoid not only personal bias when discussing politics but also avoid one-sided media bias when consuming political news media. Many mistake this suggestion as promoting only specifically formatted media programs.
I instead suggest hearing both sides of the debate. Every liberal should boldly consume partisan media of the right as should every conservative boldly consume partisan media of the left.
President Barack Obama spoke out early in his presidency against partisanship on the right and specifically named the radio conservative Rush Limbaugh. Obama specifically urged conservatives to stray away from partisans like Limbaugh, and with good reason.
While we all have partisanship within us there are certain figures in media who exhibit a bias so strong it is questionable if it is indeed genuine. Rush Limbaugh may well be far less partisan against liberals than he appears while on the air.
The bottom line is partisanship sells media. As long as media consumers of all political persuasions wish to only have their own opinions echoed back at them the partisan media will continue to thrive. This leads to the Two Americas of politics today.
A land where intolerance of thought is standard. A land of our own creation.
What does that even mean?
I am not totally sure myself.
But that’s what I am.
I have some loose idea about a New Amendment as to the nature of privacy rights and internet communications. I haven’t got any of my ducks-lined-up on that one. Just a ‘FISA / Patriot Act Afterthought’.
Where do you stand?
Is the Constitution some immutable document that defies all societal and technological development? Or is it a living document that we have ignored for decades?
Obviously, I’m biased.
March 17th 2009
The important part to know about the stimulus package-style of addressing economic malaise is that each person who receives these tax payer funds must spend, in majority, the funds in the markets for the stimulus to take any significant effect.
Many believe that spending the stimulus package funds exclusively on American products and services will serve to boost our markets more directly.
This may be true, but the bottom line is that using the funds along with savings to make wise investments or spending the money in American retailers and outlets is the only method by which any future packages would show any results.
Informing yourself on not only the best prices on the products you enjoy but which major retailers, energy companies and industries are of the best interest to our nation can lead not only to more stable markets but a greater degree of national security.
Economic strength and stability provides the higher quality intelligence services and personnel staying within the American interests.
For an informed American to claim they have their end of the economy handled in share, they would do well to understand a concept rarely addressed in any media format. The overall strength and robustness of any economy comes not from what is tracked as the DOW JONES or other market averages but rather within the actual number of jobs produced and inherent to that economy.
Also understanding that you are indeed putting real assets into the market by paying bills or with a highly modest fiscal investment, and need not make rash expensive purchases or risky investments to help build the economy up. In fact such actions may further degrade the once monolithic American markets.
Building a smart economy from the ground up is not outside the ability of any single American in help contribute towards.
Starting a small business, taking on a second or third job and hiring on more staffers to an existing business are not easy options for most Americans in 2008.
Nonetheless, these three options pose the greatest chance of enhancing the American economy in a very real way in days to come.
The last aspect of the market discussions in American mass media that is unaddressed is that each President cannot be held as strongly in referendum over the number of jobs created or lost under their Presidency as to the issue of the national budget.
Job loss or creation is a vital element of reviewing how well any President has governed over America but an epidemic of job loss or explosion of jobs could occur well outside the powers of office and at any time.
It is not to say that actions in office cannot hamper or stimulate job creation but rather that each job market is unique.
Illinois Governor Blagojevich is alleged to have attempted to sell, or barter with, the appointment of the Illinois-state Senator seat and other privileges he holds in office.
The mass media often fails to illustrate that there in fact many brands of corruption and that it is significant to understand what the major categories are. Political corruption and government corruption are the most relevant in a discussion of recent and semi-recent corruption in America.
We must indeed guard against any corruption in office but the blanket definition of simply the word ‘corruption’ by itself in a serious national discussion is bereft of value to the public.
[Read ‘Truth About Lobbyists and Public-Interest Groups’ on this site for an explanation of lobby corruption.]
Political corruption stems primarily from non-ethical actions in office and the condoning of the non-ethical actions of others. The events leading to the impeachment of President Richard Nixon was an example of political corruption on a national scale.
Government corruption is far less apparent for the public sources of information to be aware of. The ability to predict and prevent against this brand of corruption is not a task that a citizen can do more than advocate against complacency on.
The responsibility to uncover the government corruption falls on the government themselves and to the credible press.
Any official who abuses their office may not in turn break a serious enough ethical code or law to be removed from office. The charges against a corrupt official might not be sufficient to prove a case for some time, and in the meanwhile the office is in jeopardy.
A corrupt official most likely would not disclose their agenda to other significant officials unless they had some prior knowledge that this person would be of negotiable ethics. This isolates the principled officials from coming into to personal conservations with corrupt officials in which they might be able to rout out corruption first-hand.
It is within some reasonable possibility that Illinois Governor Blagojevich and any possible illegal actions he has committed in while office was not unnoticed by President-elect Obama or that there was some innuendo in Illinois circles that the Governor had questionable ethics.
Barring proof of foreknowledge we cannot accuse a person, just as we must refrain in the mass media and in our minds from a summary judgment of Blagojevich.
At this time any comments on the level of awareness of any Illinois politicians in alleged government corruption is pure speculation and no significant source has come forward to offer evidence of any connection between the allegations against Blagojevich and Obama.
Were any politician to make charges of corruption against another official and failed to prove their case before the courts and the people they would certainly lose their position and credibility.
The motivation of a national figure in modern politics includes consideration of such possibilities before pursuing a crusade against corruption. It is very important to understand this before we condemn our representatives for not throwing the disreputable and dishonest representative out of office when they sat next to them for years.
The seriousness of the crime and the loss of integrity to our government is not lessened in by political corruption over government corruption. Both offenses are the nature of what cause the loss of faith in representatives among the people of our nation.
It is highly likely that Gov. Blagojevich is about to undergo similar proceedings to what happened in the Nixon-age.
We the people must guard ourselves both in holding our representatives to high standards but also in providing a court within ourselves to the hear the case of this person said to be guilty of corruption. The ideal of innocent until proven guilty is as important within our observance of politics as it is to the legal system.
This citizen source would love to interview the Illinois Governor, who has refused to address any press until trial. I would not pronounce him corrupt by default of allegation and I am generally interested in hearing his case for the people of Illinois.
December 20th 2008