Choices: I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.

Choices.

Good advice: When you are presented with just two choices, look for a third...

The words from the song "El Condor Pasa" by Simon & Garfunkel, "I'd rather be a hammer than a nail..." [Search at http://www.youtube.com for a video of the song.] In that song you are given the two choices of being a hammer or a nail. There is a third choice. Three things are required. The hammer. The nail. What the nail is being hammered into. So I say: "It is better to be a hammer than a nail, but if you have to be the nail then be grateful you are not what the nail is being hammered into!"

I've posted the following other example before at this blog, but since it is part of this subject, I'll include it in this posting too...

There is the old question: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" I say the question is very seriously flawed because it leaves out a third choice, which could be the correct answer to the question. If a question is flawed, then how can you get a correct answer? You are given two choices. The chicken. The egg. What very important and necessary item is missing, which should be the third option? The egg is the child. The chicken is female, as all of them are, and therefore is the mother. What about the father? What about the male? The rooster! Just maybe the rooster came first. But, of course, the Democrats and Republicans would not want you to know there is a third choice, which could be the correct choice and probably is.

Please copy this and share it with others. Thanks. Spread the word. There is a third choice!

James C. Harwood
Norman, Oklahoma
Saturday 28 February 2009

President Obama's Military Speech 27 Feb 2009

I believe President Obama's speech to the US Military at at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, late Friday morning 27 February 2009, regarding the plan to end the combat mission in Iraq by 31 August 2010, is the best speech he has given so far on any subject.

I have stronger interest in other subjects, so it was not just the subject he talked about that kept me on the edge of my seat and held my attention, but how he presented it. His previous speeches have been way too long on subtopics within topics, resulting in my mind starting to wander, and a couple of times I nearly fell asleep.

It is my opinion that President Obama does a better job addressing world issues than issues here at home in the USA. I still have 100% confidence for the job he can do on the world stage. By comparison, my confidence in what he can do here in the USA, and how soon, has fallen to about 40%. That is to say, I rate him a 10 on world issues, and I now rate him a 4 on issues within the USA. Giving him a 4 is actually high praise. I would have to give most other elected officials here in the USA a score that would be less than zero, a few of them as low as a negative 10.

I sometimes wonder if we should be electing two Presidents. One to manage all matters here in the USA, and the other to manage all matters with our neighboring countries and all other countries overseas. I'd like to get Feedback regarding that idea in Comments following this posting. The home leader, and the world leader. Perhaps, the President becomes the world leader, and the Vice President becomes the home leader, if not having two Presidents. Or, maybe just one President, but two Vice Presidents – one VP for matters in the USA, and one VP for world matters.

I believe Barack Obama will go down in history as a great world leader. Time will tell if he can make a difference for the better here in the USA.

James C. Harwood
Norman, Oklahoma
Friday 27 February 2009

Another Two Party Tango: The Fairness Doctrine

ANOTHER TWO PARTY TANGO: THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE
By: Andrew Evans

You might have heard about the Fairness Doctrine in the past couple of years especially this past month or so. So what is the Fairness Doctrine and what is the entire buzz about it? Let’s look at it the old fashioned way, by breaking it down to see the whole. The Fairness Doctrine is supposedly all about requiring different view points to be heard in broadcasting. It was instituted back in 1949 but the FCC stopped enforcing it back in 1987. The Fairness Doctrine was determined by the FCC Commissioners so basically government bureaucrats decide on what is considered “fair views” on the airwaves. I guess someone has to do it. So who are these commissioners? They are appointed by the President to five year terms and are confirmed by the Senate. Only three of the commissioners can be from the same political party….hmmmm there is the kicker coming I just know it.

Sow why did the Fairness Doctrine originally come about? It came about in 1949 when radio and print was king of the media and television was still in its relative infancy. Back then in America there were far fewer media outlets and broadcasters and to make sure the American public were fairly informed due to the number of media outlets, the Fairness Doctrine was born. Of course you will hear some say that now there is more media consolidation than ever before and only a few people own the vast majority of traditional media outlets and they control the news. That is a disturbing trend but that is better left for another article (even though I am against too much media consolidation).

When most people discuss or think about the doctrine it is usually in regards to broadcasting of political or social viewpoints. So the commissioners have to decide what is “fair” when it comes to viewpoints on broadcasts? But all the commissioners are either Republican or Democrat right? EXACTLY, there is the kicker I was writing about!! This is not about fairness at all the doctrine is all about the twisted two party tango of American politics, the usual suspects, the Democrats and Republicans. The recent talk of the Fairness Doctrine is really aimed at talk radio where conservative viewpoints dominate the airwaves. Staunch liberals of course would like to change that. There was the Air America network which launched liberal talk radio and that did not fare very well on the open market. So the high up liberals got to thinking about the Fairness Doctrine again. Getting the doctrine up and running again would force liberal views back onto the airwaves and other broadcasts.

I know what you are thinking (at least I think you do, I could be wrong) isn’t having all views being heard the correct thing. Isn’t it that truly “fair”? Yes of course it is but this not about fairness this is about Liberals vs. Conservatives, plain and simple. Why is it just about their bickering and jockeying for position in the hearts and minds of Americans? The answer is as varied and strong as the American people. The answer is what about the Centrists/Moderates, Libertarians, Greens, Communists, Anarchists, Constitution, white power, black power…etc, etc. What about their viewpoints, aren’t their views just as viable as that of the Democrats and Republicans? Who will insure that their viewpoints are heard on broadcasts on the radio and television? The Democrats and Republicans on the FCC and in Congress? I truly doubt that. This is reason number one why the Fairness Doctrine would not work in today’s America and there are two more as well.

The second reason why the Fairness Doctrine will not work is because for it to work properly and “fairly” it would take up so much time on broadcasts it would be virtually impossible. You think political punditry is bad now, imagine with the Fairness Doctrine. Whole universities would be set up to jut churn out political pundits from all different political and social viewpoints. The talking heads of politics would drive us all insane. An average news broadcast could take hours and hours. Isn’t it enough we already have 24 hour news stations and I like to listen to what passes for music on the radio. I don’t want to have to listen to the whole FM dial just become nothing but political and social news to accommodate all the new viewpoints, although that would be fair it is still completely impractical. One good thing though is it would probably get rid of all commercials on the radio and on television. But wait that can’t be good aren’t we capitalist? We need to sell and know what stuff to buy! So impractability is the second reason why the Fairness Doctrine would not work.

The third and final reason why the Fairness Doctrine would not work is the American media and communication landscape has changed since 1987 when it was enforcement was ended. You know what has changed; chances are you found this article using one of the tools that changed it. You are probably reading this article online on a blog or website. You might be using you mobile phone to do so or using a satellite in reading it somehow. Our communication and media has changed. Anyone who wants to get their views out to Americans can throw up a website, can blog, can host their own Internet radio show. The tools are there to get you message out there. The growth of cable and satellite television and radio has opened up new media and broadcasting outlets since the days of 1987. America has come a long way since 1949 and 1987; let’s not go back to the tools of the past in the call for fairness when really it is nothing but a power struggle between the Democrats and Republicans. Nothing in the media is unbiased, we are all human. You want varied information just like anything good and worthy in life you have look and work for it but the information is out there along with the “truths” of all kinds of different viewpoints.


--Update it looks like the Senate supposedly has passed a permanent ban on the Fairness Doctrine today. President Obama has said he does not support the Fairness Doctrine being reinstituted. The Republicans led this charge spurned on by conservative talk radio. So does the is end the debate of course not because we all know nothing is permanent in politics and governing, except taxes.--

--This is just my thoughts on the matter--

The Opposition's Persona

As a student of government, I love political pageantry. When the President of the United States of America address a joint session of Congress, my favorite part is always the beginning. I love watching the formal parade of the most important men and women in the nation, each group with their own formal introduction and presentation. I get a lump in my throat when I the President of the United States give his speech, filled with applause, cheers, and the occasional boo from the opposition party. The sheer formality of it all fascinates me. Then after the speech, you see the President make his way out, signing autographs and shaking hands with Congressional pages.

President Obama’s speech on Tuesday gave me that same feeling. As far as sound bites go, he didn’t tell us anything we didn’t expect or didn’t already know. But he was still very eloquent, careful, and he looked like a leader. But as we know, after the speech comes the opposition party’s pre-taped “response”, and this time the young Governor Jindal of Louisiana was chosen to fill that role. Governor Jindal is supposed to be the new face of the Republican party, but the new face kind of looks a lot like the old one.

Piyush Jindal (conveniently nicknamed ‘Bobby’) is the son of Indian immigrants and attended Brown University and Oxford. He assumed the Governorship in January 2008.
The speech itself was criticized across the board. If you watched any cable news on Wednesday you know what I’m talking about. I included a link at the bottom of this post so that you can actually see what was said.


What I am focusing on though, is the persona that Governor Jindal is trying to portray in his attempt to rise through the ranks of his party. If you listened to him speak, you noticed that he gave his speech with such a thick southern accent that he was just short of beginning each sentence with “I do declare”. This wouldn’t be a problem for me, except a friend of mine brought to my attention that on other television appearences his accent and presentation has never sounded the way it did on Tuesday night. Don’t believe me? Go ahead and check out the video link at the bottom of this post and compare it to what you heard on Tuesday. Now don’t get me wrong, I find men named Bobby with southern accents just as charming as the next guy, but why is the GOP trying to push this common man persona on us again? What is it about the nature of the party system that keeps Piyush Jindal from being the intellectual young Rhodes scholar and makes him Bobby the good southern christian?

I know that everyone likes the common man, but that is how you end up with Sarah Palin. Why can’t an intellectual become a popular member of the Republican party? Why are the smart, well educated, and capable men and women (with or without southern accents) constantly being branded as “elitist”?

We have one party controlling the government, and all that the only opposition party can offer us going foreword is Bobby from the south. Anyone else feel cheated? Perhaps we need more then two choices.

-These are my own personal views-

Jinall Response Part-1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JIE7dUOWZ8

Jinall Response Part-2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swuZ_McNtsQ&feature=related

Jindall lacking his southern charm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT34N3GRtI0&feature=related

U.S. National Debt Clock