Journalism 101

Who?  What?  Where?  When?  Why?  How?  That's journalism simplified.  I took journalism in Mrs. Kirtley's 8th grade class and learned that, even in the Jr. High Newspaper, a journalist will answer those questions.  It's that simple.  When was the last time you read or watched or heard a news report that answered those questions about an important event?  Let's take a look at a couple of current events and see what we have learned from our "journalists."

Last night our federal government avoided the fiscal cliff.  The United States would have "gone over the cliff" if an agreement on taxes and spending cuts was not reached between the Democrats in the White House and in the Senate who want to deal with our $16,000,000,000,000 (the 12 zeroes make more of an impact than just "trillion," doesn't it?) debt and the Republican controlled House of Representatives who want to cut spending to deal with the $16,000,000,000,000 debt.  The president campaigned on a balanced approach that would ask the wealthiest to pay more in taxes and cuts in spending to start to rein in the out of control debt.  Both sides agree that deficit spending is "unsustainable."  Who?  The House of Representatives, the Senate, and President Obama.  What?  Agreed on a deal that would raise tax rates for individuals making over $400,000 a year and families making over $450,000 a year.  Agreed on "future" spending cuts to be negotiated by the end of February, conservative estimates of $10 of tax increases for every $1 of spending cuts or realistic estimates of $410 in tax increases for every $1 cut.  That's Washington D.C.'s definition of a "balanced approach."  Where?  That is an easy  one, in Washington D.C.  When?  Another easy one, last night.  How?  Through negotiations between Vice President Biden and Senator McConnell in the Senate and a yes vote in the House that included all Democrats and 84 Republicans.  Here's the important one that is almost never answered by "journalists."  Why?  Why do Democrats, including the president, insist on raising taxes on high earners even though the increase in taxes collected will not fund even one month's spending?  Why did 84 Republicans, including the Speaker of the House, go against their principles and agree to raising taxes on 77% of the population when you include increases through the loss of the payroll tax cut and the new Obamacare taxes in addition to the negotiated tax rate increase on the "rich" or "more fortunate" with no guarantee of ANY spending cuts at all?  "Journalists" have not answered the why, so we can come to our own conclusion.  But first lets look at a couple of more current events and answer these same basic questions.

Who?  Adam Lanza.  What?  Killed 28 people, himself, his mother, six adult teachers and school staff, and 20 kindergarten students.  When?  The morning of December 14, 2012.  Where?  Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut.  How?  With a gun.  Why?  Starts getting a little unclear here again, but if you look to the solutions offered by the president, lawmakers like Harry Reid, Senator Diane Feinstein, New York City Mayor Bloomberg, "reporters" like Piers Morgan of CNN, and the majority of Hollywood, since their solution to the mass murder problem is more restrictive gun control laws; the gun is the answer to both how and why.  We all know it's the answer to how, although it's not clear exactly what type of gun was used, maybe we can look into that question in another post.  Is it really also the answer to why?  Can an object, a tool, be a reason why?  Is a rock why Cain killed Abel?  Is an ax why Lizzie Borden killed her family?  Is a knife why someone killed O.J. Simpson's ex-wife?  Is a derringer why John Wilkes Boothe killed Abraham Lincoln?  Is an airplane why terrorists killed 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001?  Seems a little illogical to have a weapon as a reason.  So let's take a look at another set of questions.

Who?  Progressives, President Obama, Vice President Biden, Senators Biden and Feinstein, Mayor Bloomberg, reporter Piers Morgan, Hollywood in general.  What?  Promoting tighter gun control laws, up to the complete overturning of the 2nd Amendment.  When?  As soon as possible.  Where?  In the United States.  How?  Through federal law or regulations, or as the president put it, "under the radar."  Why?  Supposedly to prevent another tragedy like the Sandy Hook Elementary murders.  But if the gun is not the reason for the murders, can eliminating or restricting access to guns be the solution?  If it's not, then what is the why, for the what - gun control laws?

The answer to why takes a little more work, a little more thought.  I was taking the journalism class shortly after the Watergate scandal, and actually read Woodward and Bernstein's All the President's Men in 7th grade.  One thing I learned from reading that book is that lust for power is a common motive, or a common reason why.  Another is greed, or lust for money.  Hatred is a motive.  Rage is a motive.  Jealousy or envy is a motive.  Sometimes there might not be a motive, just flat out evil is the reason why.  Of course there are good motives too.  The most basic is love, whether it's the motive for working to take care of your family or the reason for donating to the local food bank.  At its most basic, love is the motive for any positive action.

So back to the why for the first "what" in this post, the fiscal cliff deal reached by our legislative branch and the president.  Why would both parties agree to raise taxes and not cut spending when both sides agree that our deficit is a major problem and raising taxes will not reduce it?  Let's be generous and say the reason is love.  Both sides don't want to cut social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, unemployment benefits, and on and on and on because they have such a heartfelt love for their fellow man.  Basically our government is the parent that just cannot say no.  They give their children (us) everything we want and some things we don't want, even though they have maxxed out all the credit cards and it will be up to our grandchildren and great grandchildren to pay them off.  But they do it because they have such love for all of us.

Yeah.  Right.  What's the more likely motive?  Lust for power, lust for money, or most likely a combination of the two. What better way to consolidate a politician's position than by taking from a small group to pay for benefits to a larger group.  If there was anything learned this past November, it was, as one pundit said "personal responsibility will lose out to Santa Claus every time."  

The second "what" listed above, Adam Lanza's killing spree.  Why did he do it?  There are reports of mental health issues.  Speculation about medications he may have been taking.  The bottom line is that the only possible motivation for killing 20 kindergartners is evil.  Pure evil.  Killing his mother and even the officials at the school could be motivated by rage, jealousy, or hatred, especially when combined with mental health problems and medication.  But killing children?  Evil.  There is no other explanation.

That brings us to the motive for the response to the murders.  Just as there is no way to legislate "good," there is no way to legislate to prevent "evil."  Good and evil just are.  They exist.  But as humans, we all feel the need to do something to prevent a mass murder, especially of children, from ever happening again.  Many, maybe even the majority, of the people pushing for new tighter gun control laws are doing so out of the need to just do something, anything, in response to the tragedy.  They know, deep inside, maybe even subconsciously, that there is absolutely nothing we can do to completely eliminate evil.  Because there is nothing to be done to stop the "why," they target the "how"-the tool, the gun.  Again, the basic motive here is love, the need to make sure that no other young lives are lost and no other families or communities have to feel the pain of such loss.  But for some; the president, Senators Reid and Feinstein, Mayor Bloomberg, Michael Moore, and others, the motivation once again is a lust for power. They have the need to control us, their subjects.  As the president's former chief of staff and current mayor of the United States' murder capitol (Chicago), Rahm Emmanuel said, "never let a crisis go to waste.  They give you the opportunity to accomplish things you would never be able to accomplish otherwise."  Those motivated by a lust for power are pushing hard to accomplish legislation with this fresh crisis that they have been trying unsuccessfully for years to accomplish.  They are using those with other motivations to help them.  Once again, Stalin's definition of useful idiots applies.

I think in the next few posts, we should take a look at other current events and issues and see if we can answer not just the who, what, when, where, and how, but the why as well.

No Longer Self-Evident?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.  They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government......

--The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

July 4, 1776

  

It wasn't that long ago that the truths mentioned by our founding fathers were self-evident.  They weren't up for debate.  We knew that we were endowed by our Creator with these rights.  The  government worked for us, not vice versa.  Somewhere along the way we lost sight of these truths.  We have allowed the government to grant us our rights.  The problem with the government granting rights?  The government can also rescind the same rights.  The government no longer derives its power from the consent of the governed (us).  The government   creates power for itself, if not through legislation, through regulation.  And we, the people, are allowing it and in many cases, even encouraging it.  

If our form of government is destructive to the people's unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property), and it is our right to alter or abolish that government, how we do we achieve that alteration or abolition?  That is where the first two amendments to our Constitution come into play.  

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Without the right to peaceably assemble, speak freely, and petition the  government; and the right of the people to bear arms,  it would be impossible to secure a free state or ensure the other rights granted by our Creator and guaranteed in the Constitution.  Without free speech or an armed populace, how can the people control the government as it grants itself more and more power?  We can't.  When we lose the rights guaranteed in the first two amendments, all other rights are granted at the whim of the government.  I don't think anyone, right, left, Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian are prepared for that eventuality.  Yet that's where we are heading at a breakneck speed now.  

When guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.

--Edward Abbey

We Lost

Well, the most important election of our lifetime is over.  How many times did you hear both sides use that phrase?  "The most important election of our lifetime."  Now the reality hits.  We lost.  Lots of experts, so-called experts, wannabe experts, everyday people, and conspiracy theorists are weighing in with their opinion of why we lost.  We lost because religious voters stayed home.  We lost because Latino voters didn't like the phrase "self-deportation."  We lost because women want free birth control.  We lost because unemployed welfare moms don't want to give up their Obama-phone.  We lost because of election fraud.  These are just a few of the reasons I have heard from experts of varying degrees of credibility.  I think there is a bigger reason that we lost.  I am afraid that, at least to a very large portion of our population, the truth doesn't matter.

Wednesday morning, the day after the election, a friend posted comments on Facebook about how hateful and mean so many of the comments were.  She then mentioned a Tweet from Tim Tebow on Monday.  Something to the effect of, "don't worry about the early election results tomorrow.  The Democrats will have an early lead.  Then the Republicans will get off work and vote."  She gloated about Tebow being so wrong, and in fact the opposite actually happened.  I'm not a huge Tebow fan, but I do respect him a lot, and that just didn't sound like something he would say.  So I typed "Tim Tebow election tweet" into a Google search. The very first response was about the fake Tim Tebow tweet being re-tweeted more than 17,000 times already.  It took me all of 5 seconds to find the truth and another minute to read the article to make sure it was a credible source.  I didn't want to post on my friend's Facebook timeline, thinking it might be embarrassing to her, so I sent a private message just listing the link that I found.  She responded in minutes, saying she thought it was probably a hoax, but she just likes to argue.  She didn't care about the truth, only about "winning."  She said she votes based on a couple of issues that are important to her and actually did not do ANY research into Romney's stand on these issues!  I changed the subject at that point because she admitted to having absolutely zero interest in the truth, only in arguing.

There were so many WTH!? moments on election evening.  Pennsylvania going to President Obama was one of the big ones.  When he says he plans to bankrupt the state's largest industry, coal, did they not believe him?  Or did they just not care to learn his position?  It's not like it's a secret, if you have enough interest in the truth to look.





But at least he respects the people of Pennsylvania and their beliefs, right?  Well, not exactly.  He says they "bitterly cling to their guns and their religion," specifically speaking about residents of Pennsylvania.


Virginia not only depends on the coal industry, but the military as well.  In the last presidential debate, the president says that the mandatory cuts to the military that would happen on the first of the year came from Congress' suggestion, not from him.  And that if he has his way they will never happen anyway.  Bob Woodward says that Obama was "mistaken."  In interviews for his book, The Price of Politics, the White House Office of Management Director and the Legislative Affairs Director both told Woodward that the idea for sequestration came from the White House and was presented to Senate Majority Leader Reid before being suggested to Congress.  So Woodward gives the president the benefit of the doubt, he was just  mistaken about where the idea originated.  The very next day, the president touts his idea of sequestration to produce a cut in the deficit in an off the record interview with the Des Moines Register.  No talk of a deal to prevent the mandatory cuts to military or Medicare payments to doctors, as he claimed the prior evening.  He lied period.  In spite of his promise to cut their number one industry, coal; and boasting about cuts coming to their number two economic engine, the military, Virginia voted for Obama.  Not only that, the Des Moines Register called the president on his lies and demanded that the off the record interview be made public.  Based on his interview and on the fact that he lied either during the debate or in their interview, the Register endorsed the Republican candidate for the first time in 40 years.  Iowa voted for Obama.

Ohio was crucial for a Romney win.  Obama hit Romney hard about his stand on the bailout of GM and Chrysler.  He said that Romney wanted the two automakers to go out of business.  He said that Romney was in favor of letting the automakers go bankrupt and lose all their jobs in Michigan and Ohio.  These claims led to a pretty heated exchange in the debates.  Finally ending with the president saying "let the people read it for themselves."  And Romney saying "yes, please do."  The editorial is out there and easy to find.  In it Romney does advocate a managed bankruptcy to allow the companies to restructure and provide government guarantees for loans by private lenders.  Did it matter to voters or even to the president that the truth was on Romney's side?  Apparently not.  The day after the debate, fact checkers - even those normally firmly backing the president, said the president was wrong in his debate claims.  But the president was in Dayton, OH repeating his false claims.  And in spite of the Detroit Free Press' endorsement of Romney, both Michigan and Ohio voted for Obama.

The biggest and probably most important lie of all involves the death of Ambassador Stevens, former Navy Seals and CIA contractors, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, and State Dept. Information Officer Sean Smith in Benghazi.  This incident, our president's response to it and its aftermath defines who we are as a country.  Do we still have the policy of "no man left behind?"  Initial evidence says not any more.  Hopefully Congress, the press, and the American public are still interested enough to push for the truth about this attack and our White House's response to it.

As Fox Mulder used to say on The X-Files, "the truth is out there."  It's truly not hard to find either.  It matters.  The question is, do we care anymore?  If not, we really have lost.  And we are lost as well.

By the way, did you know Iran fired on a U.S. drone over international waters on the Friday before the election?  Thought not.  It's true.  It's out there, if you are interested in looking.

Tell Me, Who Are You?

Here's my daily football reference.  The featured band at this past year's Super Bowl was The Who.  Thanks to CSI on television, their most well-known song is Who Are You.  That's a question we should be hearing a lot between now and November's elections.  

I read a lot of news and opinions from sites as diverse as Big Government and The Huffington Post.  Even more informative than the articles themselves are the comments that follow.  On one site, you will see a lot of "Obama's the anti-christ" type comments.  Of course on the other, they claim that it's all Bush's fault, you racist!  Read enough of the comments, and you really start to worry about where our country is heading, and even more importantly, why our politicians are encouraging the division.  There is very little discussion of the topic.  Mainly a lot of name-calling.  Both sides of our national arguments strongly believe they are right, and that the other side is stupid, evil, or possibly just stupidly evil.

In the past four months or so, I have become a Glenn Beck fan.  The thing that first attracted me to his show was his level-headedness.  He would lay out the facts, tell his listeners to check them out for themselves, and then decide for themselves.  He has never, at least that I have heard, read, or seen, said that our president or his supporters were evil.  Beck has repeatedly said that they have an agenda for the transformation of America.  That happens to be a progressive/socialist agenda and they have been very upfront about their intentions, but only if you are listening.  The progressives truly believe that their plan is what is best for America.  Beck has also said that he believed that when he laid out the facts, the national media would take the story and run with it and the American public would wake up.  Well, the national media has not covered the story.  They seem to be part of the progressive/socialist movement.  So then Beck laid out the connections between the media (GE-owned NBC networks), the president, Al Gore, Fannie Mae, the economic collapse, the global warming hoax,  the cap and trade legislation, and the trillions of dollars the legislation would bring to each of them.  Still no public outrage.

So, for the sake of comparison, say you see flames bursting out of the upstairs window of a crowded theater.  You run inside yelling "fire!!!"  Only a few patrons glance your direction.  So you yell louder.  Still no response.  You run outside, take a picture with your handy dandy cell phone camera.  Run back inside, waving the photo over your head, while still screaming "fire" at the top of your lungs.  When only a couple of patrons follow you outside, you get mad.  Now, instead of trying to inform the movie-goers of the danger they are in, you start name-calling.  "Moron" comes to mind.  How can they not see the peril.  They just must be stupid.  Maybe in reality, they are very cold-natured.  Burning the theater for warmth is the best idea they have.  They truly believe you are a conspiracy theory loving idiot; they are not trying to kill everyone.  A really big fire is the best way to get warm.

Ok, it's a stretch.  But that's where we are as a nation.  While Beck and others are yelling "socialism, you idiots," Obama, Ayers, Van Jones, and NBC are yelling, "we know, you idiots!"  We've got stop the name-calling and birth certificate checking and educate ourselves and those great masses of uninformed about what is really at stake.  Progressive sounds good.  We all like progress, right?  Well, kind of like the change we were promised, we'd better find out what we are progressing toward.  History does not paint a very pretty picture of past socialist movements.  

And history is what we all need to learn.  A big part of the country is waking up to the fact that the progressive movement began to change our history almost a century ago.  The changes to the Texas curriculum could be a start in the change back to the truth.  David Barton was part of the board that made the changes.  Check out his book, Original Intent for the real history of our founders, especially their belief that they were led by God.  As Barton says repeatedly, the founders were Christians.  Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.  The founders did not believe in government sponsoring a religion, but neither was religion banned from government.  

Another extremely hot topic is race.  So, take a look at Barton's American History in Black and White.  It tells the true roles of black Americans in the formation of our country, starting with patriots who were instrumental in the winning of the revolution.  The 3/5 compromise (slaves only counted as 3/5 a citizen in deciding representation in Congress) was a powerful anti-slavery provision.  That's not Barton's opinion, Glenn Beck's, or mine.  That's the opinion of Frederick Douglas.  Just in case you went to public school between 1980 and today, Douglas was a former slave and abolitionist leader who became great friends with Abraham Lincoln.  At first glance, it looks like the founders believed that blacks should not count as a whole person.  Then think logically.  When counting population to determine representation, southern slave states wanted slaves counted.  Northern states said, they count when freed.  Southern states threatened not to sign the Constitution, so a 3/5 compromise was reached.  Founders such as Jefferson, Franklin, and John and Samuel Adams believed that slaves would be eventually freed in response to the free market and in order to increase southern states' representation.  But counting slaves for representation would only tilt the congress toward making slavery permanent.  When was the civil rights bill first passed?  How about during the Grant (R) administration.  Some was overthrown by courts, then the rest repealed by the Wilson (D) administration.  Who re-introduced it?  Eisenhower (R) re-introduced it.  It never made it out of a Democratic senate.  Kennedy(D) and Johnson(D) both voted against it.  The vast majority of Americans believe that Republicans have consistently fought against rights for minorities and that Democrats have been leaders in the fight for equality.  At least since President Lincoln (R) got it all started.  But we all know that he would be a Democrat today!

Those are just some of the things that were taught at one time.  We need to learn why the texts were changed and make sure all Americans know true American history.  Americans need to make informed decisions at the next election.  We need to know who we are and where we want to go.  We can't again vote for change without asking "change to what?"  Obama's idea of what America is, is not my idea of what America is.

Glenn Beck is very good at distilling issues to their core.  On his television show today, he said Americans need to look to the summer of 1969.  Are we the Americans that went to the moon?  Or are we the Americans who, three weeks after the moon landing, rolled in the mud smoking pot at Woodstock?  As Pete Townsend and Roger Daltrey of The Who (they played at Woodstock by the way) asked, "Who are you?"