One side of the Issue: California's Proposition 8

For more information on Proposition 8, please visit the following sites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
http://www.protectmarriage.com/
http://www.noonprop8.com/

My view?

Later.

I just wish Olberman had done this talk 10 days ago.

Obama Chooses Biden

So if you haven't heard by now (first of all, shame on you), Obama has chosen Joe Biden as his running mate.


from the Chicago Tribune

So first glance...

Huge differences. Most obvious? The racial issue.

Second on the docket? Age. Biden is 65.

He's been in the senate since the late 1970's, and some columnists from CNN have said that Biden's experience will make up for Obama's lack thereof.

The question also arose though: if Obama is trying to enact "change," why bring in an attack dog like Biden who's been in the game so long he's probably used to the status quo? The optimistic side says it is first necessary to learn the rules before you can properly break them, and Biden will be Obama's teacher in terms of old laws.

Also, Obama can have faith that Biden will know who's in charge when it is time to break the rules.

So it seems. We'll let it play out, shall we?

AOL News Item of the Day: Media Biased against Obama?

Check this out.

Now there's a headline sure to make Rush Limbaugh's face a little redder. The claim comes to us from George Mason University's Center for Media and Public Affairs, which has studied network newscasts for 20 years running. After analyzing the nightly ebb and flow of our current race, the center's researchers see a pattern (Via the Los Angeles Times):


"...that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign."

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.


Just how does one measure "tougher," you ask?


"During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks were neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative."


Yes, it seems as though the "Big Three" (cable TV and print journalism were not looked at in the study) are so sensitive to the accusation of liberal bias that they're going out of their way to knock the Illinois senator.

McCain also has been the recipient of negative commentary, but not nearly to the same degree:


"Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center."


While it is true that Obama gets more coverage than McCain, that coverage itself -- at least from the 3 major network -- tends to show a conservative bias. Here's how Robert Lichter, the director of The Center for Media and Public Affairs, put it:


"This information should blow away this silly assumption that more coverage is always better coverage,"


No, the old advertising adage -- there's no such thing as bad publicity -- doesn't hold true for politics. Just ask Gary Condit, or Ted Stevens.

But how many people really watch the Big Three anymore for their nightly shot of news? According to TVNewser, about 21 million Americans.

Though the influence of network news is falling fast, especially with younger Americans who are moving in droves to the internet for their information, 21 million eyes still represents a significant portion of the voting population.

So, could the pro-McCain bias be having an effect on the race? No doubt. Maybe it's the x-factor that commentators like Robert Novak have been searching for to explain why Obama still has only a 9-point lead over McCain in national polls. After all, we know that Obama tends to do better with younger voters, while McCain is the preference of those of advanced years. Not surprisingly, the Big Three networks also do well with older viewers, those Americans who have long ago settled into a routine of planting themselves in their recliners each and every night to receive that definitive half hour of world events. The question then, it seems to me, is whether ABC, CBS and NBC are playing to their audience of older viewers by being more critical of Obama, or if their coverage, in part, helps account for older voters' reticence to support the new guy.

[From AOL News]

Rev...I'm getting sick of y'all niggas now...

(I thought the mugshot was appropriate here, don't you?)

So apparently, the press is still following Rev. Jesse Jackson, because he--in the SAME APPEARANCE in which he wanted to cut off Obama's nuts--referred to black people using the "N-word."

Jesse...the nuts comment was funny...but dang. You just went to town, didn't you?

I don't have any personal injuries that surround the N-word, because I've never been truly victimized by it, and I'm lucky to say it. And as I said in a previous entry, most times, we just attach our own injuries and cultural definitions to words and make things incredibly confusing for ourselves.

But if you're in the public eye, and you're constantly pushing for racial equality, and complaining about a candidate for the presidency "talking down to black people," saying "nigger" or any variation thereof is--let's face it--stupid.

And it's more stupid than hurtful.

I think I understand now why people were so initially pissed with the nuts comment...but at the same time, Jesse Jackson didn't really prove himself hurtful. He proved himself incapable of choosing the right words...y'all sure he ain't senile?

Main Street! Lol.

Rev...y'all just can't get it right!

So first, Rev Wright runs his mouth (unapologetically),

Then Father Phleger takes a stab at Hillary during a sermon and is told to sit out of the pulpit for a while,

Now, Rev. Jesse Jackson...



wants to cut Barack Obama's nuts off.

Now, I have a harsh wit at times, so I know what it's like to have to watch yourself, and make sure that you aren't actually hurting anybody. And the fact that he got caught isn't the problem, even though that's what everyone is making a big deal about. Face it; he wouldn't have gotten caught if he had never said it. People are pissed because he said it. Particularly his son.

Not that I'm sure why...not quite sure what Obama's nuts has to do with the equation. Granted, Hillary's nuts were put on a pedestal to help her win the democratic nomination, and you see how that turned out.

Personally, I think it's hilarious. And if you watch the video, so did Jackson. I don't think the comment was made to be taken seriously. You really can't expect everybody in your camp to agree with EVERYTHING you're saying, and Obama and Jackson have a slight disagreement with the way racial issues should be handled. It happens. Jackson just made a joke.

But these Reverends just can't get it together.

I'm preselling tickets to a streetfight Obama and Eddie Long, with special guest referee Kimbo Slice.

Y'all know Eddie is swolled.

Obama "Distorts" Bible?

I'm not even going to share any opinion on this. I'll just let you look.

Remember what I said in the first post about the God being bigger than the Bible and your interpretation of the Bible? Yea. And I really can't seem to get how speaking to someone in a language they can understand/making understandable references is a "fruitcake version of the constitution."

I said I wasn't gonna give an opinion. So go look.