Links
Archives
A page dedicated to an independent point of view on many different topics.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
This is a call to action. Perhaps even a call for understanding. Particularly I want to hear from republicans who would consider themselves "South Park" republicans. You know the kind, fiscally conservative, socially liberal or libertarian. I want to know your opinion of your party currently. I'm a libertarian. In fact, I could even be labeled a south park republican because I fall into that category. But recently I had a spirited discussion with a friend of mine who is staunchly republican. He's Bush man and a Bud fan, as Harry might say.
He was distressed recently by Bush's outspoken comments on gay marriage and a push for a Constitutional Amendment to "protect traditional marriage."
This individual is a well read, well spoken, intelligent individual. He disagrees with some of Bush's policies, but works hard to make sure he is re-elected in November. He has ultimate trust and faith in the republican party and, poo poos the thought that Bush's social conservatism is a threat to women's choice, homosexuals and minorities. While he admits the religious right is extremely vocal in his party, he believes there is a large "silent majority" in the party that will work to protect civil rights and keep the government out of our homes and bedrooms.
I hope so. I truly do hope so. Problem is, I don't believe him. I see a president who makes policy based on belief and his religion, who bows to conservative Christian groups and panders to far right special interests, and works hard to put people in positions of power who do the same.
Here's the issue. He votes strict party line regardless of the individual involved. I know a number of republicans who do the same. I know a few democrats who do likewise, but not nearly as many, perhaps because I think Colorado tends to be a fairly independent state and doesn't walk lock-step in line with a specific party. Moreso, he gets angry when he's lumped in with those in the republican party who are from the religious right, those who aren't happy with just living the "Christian" life themselves, they insist everyone else do the same, and they're working hard to make government our big brother to make sure we do. He says he disagrees with some issues raised by Bush and the religious right who control the party. He says he thinks for himself and has his own opinions, and he should be debated specifically on those alone.
My problem is, when you block vote, that is, when you vote the party instead of the man, you automatically tie yourself into the party, what it is, and what it represents. There was a time when Republicans stood for fairness, small government, fiscal conservatism and social libertarianism. Republicans have been in the past, champions of the environment, individual responsibility and, even at one time, used to help the downtrodden. I STILL believe there are many republicans who represent these virtues. However, those individuals have been swamped, muted and essentially negated by the vocal, powerful and zealous religious right who are now in charge of party policy. But if you simply vote party, not paying attention to the individual, you HAVE to take responsibility for the ultimate decisions made by those running the party. You CAN'T separate yourself from that distinction. To simply say, "I disagree with the president on these issues," or, "I think this particular candidate might be racist, or against equal rights, or not the best candidate between the two," and yet still you vote for that candidate simply because of party affiliation, you cannot then later distance yourself from them and their ideas. You have shown support, you have helped place them in a position of power and you must then explain your actions when they ultimately make terrible mistakes that either cost people their lives, or slash the rights of individuals. In other words, you WILL be called to the carpet to debate their policy and defend it. If democrats voted for a racist and placed him in power, by association, those who actively worked for that candidate and voted for that candidate is also a racist.
Think that's a little bit of a leap in logic? Perhaps. Maybe it's hyperbole even. But it makes the point. You can't shake the devils hand and then later disassociate yourself from him. I believe my associate stands for fairness, for equality, for justice. I belive he's a good man, a smart man. So it's with much confusion how he can stand by and so blindly support not just a president, but a party, that seemingly no longer stands for the same virtues he does.
I ask you out there, why is there NOT a movement by this "silent majority" of republicans to retake their party back from an extremist group of religious zealots. Why aren't more republicans working to get their party BACK to its basics...smaller government, wise spending policy, fairness and equality for all Americans, not just straight, Christian ones.
I don't have a problem with Bush having a problem with gay marriage. There are many in this country who have issues with that. But to fundamentally change our constitution to reflect his personal religious ideology is wrong. There are republicans in Colorado who want to recall the mayor of Denver simply because he came out in support of gays and lesbians in their fight, even though he took measures to say he would not flaunt current law to approve such unions. Is THIS the kind of republican party you belive in? Those who would squash freedom of speech? I say no! Do you want your republican party mandating patriotism? Giving your tax dollars to religious institutions? Spending your money to counsel Americans about marriage? NO! Is it the government's job to meddle in the affairs of marriage? Absolutely not. Much like any other state vs. religious issue, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of churches in the United State available for couples to attend to meet their particular religious needs. We don't need to have the government getting involved and making it the responsibility of the government to counsel couples, or pay churches to do so.
This is not what the republican party is about. This is exactly the kind of action and big government that republicans traditionally blasted (and rightly so) the democrats for. I ask again...where is the anger, where is the outcry, where is the protest by the "silent majority" of republicans who are tired of seeing their party usurped by a vocal and zealous religious right? Take back your party. Get back to your basics, separate yourselves from the Pat Robertsons of the world, much as Democrats have tried to separate themselves from radicals in the feminist and environmental movements, and republicans will have the support of the vast population in America. Unlike Bush, you HAVE to remember, compromise is NOT a dirty word. There is a moderate ground in which most of Americans live. Clinton understood that. Reagan understood that. Bush doesn't get it. And while he worships at the feet of the religious right, he is losing ground with many Americans who are growing more fearful of the growing theocracy in Washington.
Lest you think I'm simply a republican basher, these are the exact same reasons why I vigorously opposed Lieberman. Instead of working logically and thoughtfully as a politician, his deep religious views would have overshadowed every decision he made. A president needs to make decisions based on sound policy and with the best interests of everyone in mind, not based on a prayer and a note from the religious right.
On the other hand...perhaps I'll try a little prayer tonight myself..."O Lord bless us with Colin Powell as president." And if that doesn't work, there's still Edwards.
He was distressed recently by Bush's outspoken comments on gay marriage and a push for a Constitutional Amendment to "protect traditional marriage."
This individual is a well read, well spoken, intelligent individual. He disagrees with some of Bush's policies, but works hard to make sure he is re-elected in November. He has ultimate trust and faith in the republican party and, poo poos the thought that Bush's social conservatism is a threat to women's choice, homosexuals and minorities. While he admits the religious right is extremely vocal in his party, he believes there is a large "silent majority" in the party that will work to protect civil rights and keep the government out of our homes and bedrooms.
I hope so. I truly do hope so. Problem is, I don't believe him. I see a president who makes policy based on belief and his religion, who bows to conservative Christian groups and panders to far right special interests, and works hard to put people in positions of power who do the same.
Here's the issue. He votes strict party line regardless of the individual involved. I know a number of republicans who do the same. I know a few democrats who do likewise, but not nearly as many, perhaps because I think Colorado tends to be a fairly independent state and doesn't walk lock-step in line with a specific party. Moreso, he gets angry when he's lumped in with those in the republican party who are from the religious right, those who aren't happy with just living the "Christian" life themselves, they insist everyone else do the same, and they're working hard to make government our big brother to make sure we do. He says he disagrees with some issues raised by Bush and the religious right who control the party. He says he thinks for himself and has his own opinions, and he should be debated specifically on those alone.
My problem is, when you block vote, that is, when you vote the party instead of the man, you automatically tie yourself into the party, what it is, and what it represents. There was a time when Republicans stood for fairness, small government, fiscal conservatism and social libertarianism. Republicans have been in the past, champions of the environment, individual responsibility and, even at one time, used to help the downtrodden. I STILL believe there are many republicans who represent these virtues. However, those individuals have been swamped, muted and essentially negated by the vocal, powerful and zealous religious right who are now in charge of party policy. But if you simply vote party, not paying attention to the individual, you HAVE to take responsibility for the ultimate decisions made by those running the party. You CAN'T separate yourself from that distinction. To simply say, "I disagree with the president on these issues," or, "I think this particular candidate might be racist, or against equal rights, or not the best candidate between the two," and yet still you vote for that candidate simply because of party affiliation, you cannot then later distance yourself from them and their ideas. You have shown support, you have helped place them in a position of power and you must then explain your actions when they ultimately make terrible mistakes that either cost people their lives, or slash the rights of individuals. In other words, you WILL be called to the carpet to debate their policy and defend it. If democrats voted for a racist and placed him in power, by association, those who actively worked for that candidate and voted for that candidate is also a racist.
Think that's a little bit of a leap in logic? Perhaps. Maybe it's hyperbole even. But it makes the point. You can't shake the devils hand and then later disassociate yourself from him. I believe my associate stands for fairness, for equality, for justice. I belive he's a good man, a smart man. So it's with much confusion how he can stand by and so blindly support not just a president, but a party, that seemingly no longer stands for the same virtues he does.
I ask you out there, why is there NOT a movement by this "silent majority" of republicans to retake their party back from an extremist group of religious zealots. Why aren't more republicans working to get their party BACK to its basics...smaller government, wise spending policy, fairness and equality for all Americans, not just straight, Christian ones.
I don't have a problem with Bush having a problem with gay marriage. There are many in this country who have issues with that. But to fundamentally change our constitution to reflect his personal religious ideology is wrong. There are republicans in Colorado who want to recall the mayor of Denver simply because he came out in support of gays and lesbians in their fight, even though he took measures to say he would not flaunt current law to approve such unions. Is THIS the kind of republican party you belive in? Those who would squash freedom of speech? I say no! Do you want your republican party mandating patriotism? Giving your tax dollars to religious institutions? Spending your money to counsel Americans about marriage? NO! Is it the government's job to meddle in the affairs of marriage? Absolutely not. Much like any other state vs. religious issue, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of churches in the United State available for couples to attend to meet their particular religious needs. We don't need to have the government getting involved and making it the responsibility of the government to counsel couples, or pay churches to do so.
This is not what the republican party is about. This is exactly the kind of action and big government that republicans traditionally blasted (and rightly so) the democrats for. I ask again...where is the anger, where is the outcry, where is the protest by the "silent majority" of republicans who are tired of seeing their party usurped by a vocal and zealous religious right? Take back your party. Get back to your basics, separate yourselves from the Pat Robertsons of the world, much as Democrats have tried to separate themselves from radicals in the feminist and environmental movements, and republicans will have the support of the vast population in America. Unlike Bush, you HAVE to remember, compromise is NOT a dirty word. There is a moderate ground in which most of Americans live. Clinton understood that. Reagan understood that. Bush doesn't get it. And while he worships at the feet of the religious right, he is losing ground with many Americans who are growing more fearful of the growing theocracy in Washington.
Lest you think I'm simply a republican basher, these are the exact same reasons why I vigorously opposed Lieberman. Instead of working logically and thoughtfully as a politician, his deep religious views would have overshadowed every decision he made. A president needs to make decisions based on sound policy and with the best interests of everyone in mind, not based on a prayer and a note from the religious right.
On the other hand...perhaps I'll try a little prayer tonight myself..."O Lord bless us with Colin Powell as president." And if that doesn't work, there's still Edwards.
Monday, February 23, 2004
I'm not here to defend gay marriage. I'm not even here to bash republicans who turn a blind eye towards what is increasingly becoming a more theocratic party. I'm here to ask a question, or more importantly, urge you to remember your history.
First, it's important to acknowlege that George Bush's America is a Christian America. Not that there's anything wrong with Christianity. It's a fine religion, responsible for its fair share of peace and bloodshed, like most other religions. The problem becomes when that very religion becomes the basis for constitutional changes. The idea of a constitutional amendment to "safeguard" traditional marriage seems ludicrous to me. Traditional marriage between a man and a woman will go on as it always has...with a fifty percent chance of divorce, abuse and strife, with only a small percentage lasting a as a loving relationship until the end. It's been that way for a long, long time in America...rest assured that won't change. But let's get past the religious arguments for a moment.
Let's talk about the republican mantra of smaller government. This current batch of republicans apparently don't believe in that idea when it comes to regulating morality. Keep big government out of our wallets, put them in our bedrooms, is apparently their slogan now. Prosecute a woman selling dildos out of her house in Texas. Fight, unsuccessfully, to outlaw sodomy between consenting adults (again Texas), attempt to put laws in place defining pornography that could send a retailer to jail for displaying the word "fuck" (don't even think about wearing it on a t-shirt, you could go to jail for that as well), the last one is a bill currently in front of the republican legislature in Colorado. All this in the name of "protection". And yet, protections for the environment, for public health, for the poor are constantly poo-pooed by the right as "intrusions" by big government.
I recently had a conversation with a colleague who said the majority in America wouldn't have a problem with a ban on gay marriage based on recent polls and elections. Once again, a reminder. America is a constitutional republic, NOT a true democracy. In other words, just because the majority agrees with it, doesn't make it right. Please remember, the republicans fought against their own president and the majority of thought in America in the 1860's regarding slavery and ultimately limited civil rights. Following Lincoln's assasination blacks were being persecuted not just in the South, but all over the United States. The majority of Americans at the time weren't zealous in their support of the abolition movement. Many more Americans believed outright that blacks were secondary citizens and therefore not entitled to the same rights as whites.
I'm not equating the plight of blacks to the plight of gays in America. There are some real differences in the two situations. Instead, this is an argument against majority rule. Today, we can see the fallacy in the thinking of most American's in the 1860's that blacks were inherently inferior. Fortunately, a strong republican congress passed acts, and even made changes in the constitution to protect ALL Americans, regardless of their race. While many of these laws were ignored, and blacks continue to fight for some civil rights, even today, the fact was that republicans of the age, recognized a person's right to freedom. They recognized equality and moved to protect that equality, regardless of their skin color, and over the loud objections of their constituencies.
I see a similar process taking place in America today. Gays are just people. Whether you choose to be gay or not isn't really an issue in this discussion. Whether or not you believe homosexuality is evil or immoral also shouldn't be in this discussion. That's a religious issue, an issue of belief that has no place in the political arena. Contrary to current popular belief, it's possible to be a law-abiding citizen without being religious at all. Also, the idea that all of our laws are based on the teachings of the bible...well, not so fast, mister. Many of our current laws are strikingly similar to what's known as Hammurabi's Code. King Hammurabi was a Mesopatamian king thousands of years before the bible was ever written. His code called for respect between individuals. Punishment for killing another, No stealing, no lying, punishments for men and women alike who broke their wedding vows. Does any of this sound familiar?
These codes were ultimately adopted by a more secular Egyptian society in the Middle to Late Kingdoms. Some biblical scholars believe Moses, who was raised as an Egyptian prince used these same codes to help give the unorganized and recently freed jews a set of laws by which to live their lives. A stretch? Perhaps, but for many, about as much of a stretch as it is to believe that the laws came from God speaking through a burning bush. While Hammurabi DID credit one of his gods for helping his craft his 13 codes (you can still see the pillar with the codes in the London Museum of Antiquities), the Egyptians credited their God of truth, Thoth, with their system of law, which also enforced a system of respect for other individuals. No killing, no stealing, no lying, no adultry, respect for parents, etc.
It's true that there might a be a majority of Americans who aren't thrilled with the idea of John marrying Jack, or with Sally marrying Susie. But in the end, it's what's right that matters. The problem is how we define "right". I believe that right is equality for all men and women. That people shouldn't be discriminated against for their sexual preference. I believe that "right" means sometimes going against the popular opinion. We've all seen how "popular opinion" can falter, sometimes with horrendous results. One need only look at the popular opinion in Germany in the 30's and 40's which led to the discrimination, segregation and ultimately the death of millions of jews.
Being "right" isn't defined by your religion, in my opinion. It's based on respect for individuals and equal treament. One quick final note. Ask yourself. If it's not allright to discriminate against people because of their religion, which it isn't, why then is it allright to discriminate against gays? Even if you think they choose their sexuality, ask yourself if people are born Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim or Buddhist. People more often than not, choose their religion. But that doesn't stop them from getting the same protection under the law as everyone else...does it?
Hopefully, in a hundred years, we as a country will be able to look back at this debate and know we did the right thing by NOT changing our constitution to discriminate against gays.
First, it's important to acknowlege that George Bush's America is a Christian America. Not that there's anything wrong with Christianity. It's a fine religion, responsible for its fair share of peace and bloodshed, like most other religions. The problem becomes when that very religion becomes the basis for constitutional changes. The idea of a constitutional amendment to "safeguard" traditional marriage seems ludicrous to me. Traditional marriage between a man and a woman will go on as it always has...with a fifty percent chance of divorce, abuse and strife, with only a small percentage lasting a as a loving relationship until the end. It's been that way for a long, long time in America...rest assured that won't change. But let's get past the religious arguments for a moment.
Let's talk about the republican mantra of smaller government. This current batch of republicans apparently don't believe in that idea when it comes to regulating morality. Keep big government out of our wallets, put them in our bedrooms, is apparently their slogan now. Prosecute a woman selling dildos out of her house in Texas. Fight, unsuccessfully, to outlaw sodomy between consenting adults (again Texas), attempt to put laws in place defining pornography that could send a retailer to jail for displaying the word "fuck" (don't even think about wearing it on a t-shirt, you could go to jail for that as well), the last one is a bill currently in front of the republican legislature in Colorado. All this in the name of "protection". And yet, protections for the environment, for public health, for the poor are constantly poo-pooed by the right as "intrusions" by big government.
I recently had a conversation with a colleague who said the majority in America wouldn't have a problem with a ban on gay marriage based on recent polls and elections. Once again, a reminder. America is a constitutional republic, NOT a true democracy. In other words, just because the majority agrees with it, doesn't make it right. Please remember, the republicans fought against their own president and the majority of thought in America in the 1860's regarding slavery and ultimately limited civil rights. Following Lincoln's assasination blacks were being persecuted not just in the South, but all over the United States. The majority of Americans at the time weren't zealous in their support of the abolition movement. Many more Americans believed outright that blacks were secondary citizens and therefore not entitled to the same rights as whites.
I'm not equating the plight of blacks to the plight of gays in America. There are some real differences in the two situations. Instead, this is an argument against majority rule. Today, we can see the fallacy in the thinking of most American's in the 1860's that blacks were inherently inferior. Fortunately, a strong republican congress passed acts, and even made changes in the constitution to protect ALL Americans, regardless of their race. While many of these laws were ignored, and blacks continue to fight for some civil rights, even today, the fact was that republicans of the age, recognized a person's right to freedom. They recognized equality and moved to protect that equality, regardless of their skin color, and over the loud objections of their constituencies.
I see a similar process taking place in America today. Gays are just people. Whether you choose to be gay or not isn't really an issue in this discussion. Whether or not you believe homosexuality is evil or immoral also shouldn't be in this discussion. That's a religious issue, an issue of belief that has no place in the political arena. Contrary to current popular belief, it's possible to be a law-abiding citizen without being religious at all. Also, the idea that all of our laws are based on the teachings of the bible...well, not so fast, mister. Many of our current laws are strikingly similar to what's known as Hammurabi's Code. King Hammurabi was a Mesopatamian king thousands of years before the bible was ever written. His code called for respect between individuals. Punishment for killing another, No stealing, no lying, punishments for men and women alike who broke their wedding vows. Does any of this sound familiar?
These codes were ultimately adopted by a more secular Egyptian society in the Middle to Late Kingdoms. Some biblical scholars believe Moses, who was raised as an Egyptian prince used these same codes to help give the unorganized and recently freed jews a set of laws by which to live their lives. A stretch? Perhaps, but for many, about as much of a stretch as it is to believe that the laws came from God speaking through a burning bush. While Hammurabi DID credit one of his gods for helping his craft his 13 codes (you can still see the pillar with the codes in the London Museum of Antiquities), the Egyptians credited their God of truth, Thoth, with their system of law, which also enforced a system of respect for other individuals. No killing, no stealing, no lying, no adultry, respect for parents, etc.
It's true that there might a be a majority of Americans who aren't thrilled with the idea of John marrying Jack, or with Sally marrying Susie. But in the end, it's what's right that matters. The problem is how we define "right". I believe that right is equality for all men and women. That people shouldn't be discriminated against for their sexual preference. I believe that "right" means sometimes going against the popular opinion. We've all seen how "popular opinion" can falter, sometimes with horrendous results. One need only look at the popular opinion in Germany in the 30's and 40's which led to the discrimination, segregation and ultimately the death of millions of jews.
Being "right" isn't defined by your religion, in my opinion. It's based on respect for individuals and equal treament. One quick final note. Ask yourself. If it's not allright to discriminate against people because of their religion, which it isn't, why then is it allright to discriminate against gays? Even if you think they choose their sexuality, ask yourself if people are born Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim or Buddhist. People more often than not, choose their religion. But that doesn't stop them from getting the same protection under the law as everyone else...does it?
Hopefully, in a hundred years, we as a country will be able to look back at this debate and know we did the right thing by NOT changing our constitution to discriminate against gays.
Two is the Loneliest Number.
America loves numbers. We're a Joe Friday kind of society. Just the facts, ma'am. We want to see the numbers, give us the proof, let us see the figures, man! The numbers speak for themselves. Our debates center around numbers. One is our favorite number. We all strive to be number ONE! One people, one government, the singular individual. We're even fond of the number two. Two parties, Two houses of congress, we want Two sides to every story. Unfortunately, the numbers get a little murky when dealing with justice in America.
In my lifetime, and I'm guessing from the origins of America, there are two courts in america. Certainly, our justice system is simple in theory. That simplicity was innovative upon its creation and remains beautiful in its simplicity. The accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. And I suppose in the true court of law, this primarily still holds true. But there's another court in America, perhaps a more powerful force than any scale of justice can resist. The court of public opinion.
I bring this up because of the "scandal" currently making headlines out of Boulder. There have been six or seven (depending on which news agency you subscribe to) allegations of sexual assault against current or former CU football players. In the court of law, allegations are just that. Accusations are simply allegations which need to be proven and substantiated with meaningful facts or undeniable proof. The simple word of an individual is rarely enough to convict the accused in a court of law. But move over to the court of public opinion, a mere accusation can become fact as fast as it takes a news agency to beam the accusation around the world in sixty seconds.
So far, in the court of law, no CU players, current or former, have been indicted or convicted of any crimes against women stemming from the now-infamous 2001 recruit party. Yet that didn't stop coach Gary Barnett from suspending three of the players alleged to have been involved in that incident. Two of those players ultimately lost their scholarships. Is that an indictment on their involvement. Possibly. Is it undeniable proof. Not hardly. Former kicker Katie Hneida accuses a former player of raping her. Yet no names, no specifics have been offered by the accuser. Finally, the most recent allegation involved a young woman who, after admittedly drinking copious amounts of alcohol, passes out and wakes up the next morning at home, with physical proof of a rape. Since she remembers speaking to "two large black men" at the bar the night before, she assumes they're football players, hence, one of them MUST have raped her. In the court of law, DNA evidence has already exonerated one of the accused from the rape. The investigation is still underway on an unnamed player.
These are the facts. Yet, in the court of public opinion, ALL CU players are culpable for the alleged crimes of a few. The allegations are being used by some organizations such as NOW and MESA (Mission to End Sexual Assault) as fact. This isn't surprising. This has become a men vs. women issue in many arenas. These organizations tend to take these, if not all, allegations at face value as true. Whereas men, knowing a simple false allegation can, and has, ruined lives, tend to be more cautious, waiting for more facts, for more proof. Yet the court of public opinion turns on more than simple allegations. Often times, left unchecked the accused themselves do more harm to their case than they help. Gary Barnett's comments regarding the abilities of Hneida instantly demonized him as the culprit in this growing scandal. He was responding to a direct question, posed by a reporter, regarding Hneida's abilities. He responded with truth. She isn't good. He never made the connection that her abilities, or lack thereof justified a rape. However his candidness placed him in a nearly no-win situation. Answer truthfully, he's painted as an evil man, overlooking every misstep of his players. Answer dishonestly, he's crucified as a disingenuous man, covering his ass. Decline to answer the question, again he's condemned as guilty, by those who'll ask, why not answer? What's he hiding?
News agencies play the role of attorney's in this court; the public plays judge and jury. A similar link can be made to the JonBenet Ramsey case, also out of Boulder a few years back. The parents looked guilty, they "acted" guilty, according to many in the media. The facts were muddy, the questions numerous. In the absence of a real bad guy in the story, the attorney's went to work. Various public appearances by the Ramsey's only added to the frenzy. And it was a frenzy, much like the current CU scandal is. I'll get to that in a second.
Even in the aftermath of Columbine, the court of public opinion rallied against the very men and women who risked their lives to save the students and faculty in the school on that awful day. Mistakes were made, heads must roll.
And that, in essence, is the REAL purpose of the court of public opinion, isn't it? In the court of law, life isn't black and white. Sometimes the bad guys don't get their just desserts. Sometimes, the bad guys aren't the bad guys after all. Facts, proof, testimony, the law clears the accused, often to the chagrin of the public. After all, the public has decided the accused is guilty, based on leaked facts and reporters with agendas; isn't that enough?
There's no such murkiness in the court of public opinion. In this court, the public speaks, it's will be done. There HAS to be a bad guy, someone we can collectively point to and lay blame. It makes us feel good about ourselves...it can make us feel safer if evil is overcome, we can stand firm on our moral high ground if the accused, regardless of facts, bows to the sword of justice. In the absence of the real bad guys after Columbine, the public went after the only ones left standing, the police, the school administration, the parents of the killers. SOMEONE had to take a fall, since the real killers weren't around to face the public's wrath.
At CU, Barnett has become the focus of fire-breathing feminists, anti-CU types and politicos either wilting under public pressure or looking to make a name for themselves. By proxy, the current players have all come under fire regardless of their character or personal actions. All CU players, CU administration, CU males in general, fans of CU, are somehow culpable in the alleged actions of two or three players. Is this to say that NOTHING went on at CU? No, on the contrary, I'm quite sure that there are players in the CU program who don't quite understand that no means no. Just as there are players at other programs, as well as men in general walking campuses around the country who don't get it either. Instead of bashing a program that has worked hard to keep its players out of trouble, perhaps NOW should be looking at the culture of alcoholism and partying that pervades CU and countless other Universities nationwide.
Instead of automatically believing every accusation put forth, perhaps NOW should fight vigorously for tougher sentences against women who falsely accuse men of rape. Cut down on the false allegations, and perhaps more allegations will be taken more seriously. A simple acknowledgment that sometimes accusations are false is a start. In the court of public opinion, it's better a few innocents take the fall than let one guilty person go free. Quite the opposite of the court of law whose motto is, better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to unjustly convict one innocent.
As for the media. As a longtime veteran of newsrooms from newspaper to television, I can say this with confidence. Time is against them, especially in TV. Complicated stories are boiled down to mere seconds. Not nearly enough time to clearly spell out facts, let alone both sides of the story. Plus the line between news and entertainment has been so blurred, it's hard for the public to tell the difference. between opinion and news anymore. Pundits such as Rush Limbaugh, newspaper columnists, tv newsmagazine hosts, use facts to support a single opinion, or prove a specific agenda. This opinion, is often mistaken by many in the public as hard news. Plus, and this may sound flippant, but it's not, tv people are lazy. Newspaper reporters do most of the legwork, gathering information that often ends up on your 5pm newscast. Producers, particularly, facing tight deadlines working in a high-stress environment, sometimes will cut corners. Have a big news story, great, it fill one minute of my newscast, thank you. This means a big story remains a big story, at the expense of other news. It's an odd game, producers and reporters giving the public information on a story perceived to be big. Adding layer upon layer until the story has grown to such proportions it becomes a frenzy, too big to handle. Each agency trying to outdo the other to get the big scoop in the big story.
I'm not indicting the news media, they're doing their job. I'm not even indicting feminist organizations or even the public for that matter. I'll be the first to say that if any of the allegations at CU can be proven, action should be taken, criminal or civil. But to simply settle the civil lawsuits currently facing the University of Colorado, as one Professor urged CU to do recently, is silly. To do so would admit guilt. Why would anyone admit guilt without real proof? The accusers have already won in the court of public opinion. CU will wear the stain of this scandal for years to come, most likely. Even if the accusations turn out to be untrue, the cloud of suspicion will hover over the team for a very long time. CU can't win in the public court. It still has a chance to win in the true court of law. Why would they throw that away by settling? Don't do it, Hoffman, don't do it, CU. By settling, you submit to the public court and send a message to any person hoping to get rich quick that a simple allegation is all that is needed to crumble a fine institution. Make accuser and accused alike face the music in the court of law, where at least some semblance of law and order still exists.
America loves numbers. We're a Joe Friday kind of society. Just the facts, ma'am. We want to see the numbers, give us the proof, let us see the figures, man! The numbers speak for themselves. Our debates center around numbers. One is our favorite number. We all strive to be number ONE! One people, one government, the singular individual. We're even fond of the number two. Two parties, Two houses of congress, we want Two sides to every story. Unfortunately, the numbers get a little murky when dealing with justice in America.
In my lifetime, and I'm guessing from the origins of America, there are two courts in america. Certainly, our justice system is simple in theory. That simplicity was innovative upon its creation and remains beautiful in its simplicity. The accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. And I suppose in the true court of law, this primarily still holds true. But there's another court in America, perhaps a more powerful force than any scale of justice can resist. The court of public opinion.
I bring this up because of the "scandal" currently making headlines out of Boulder. There have been six or seven (depending on which news agency you subscribe to) allegations of sexual assault against current or former CU football players. In the court of law, allegations are just that. Accusations are simply allegations which need to be proven and substantiated with meaningful facts or undeniable proof. The simple word of an individual is rarely enough to convict the accused in a court of law. But move over to the court of public opinion, a mere accusation can become fact as fast as it takes a news agency to beam the accusation around the world in sixty seconds.
So far, in the court of law, no CU players, current or former, have been indicted or convicted of any crimes against women stemming from the now-infamous 2001 recruit party. Yet that didn't stop coach Gary Barnett from suspending three of the players alleged to have been involved in that incident. Two of those players ultimately lost their scholarships. Is that an indictment on their involvement. Possibly. Is it undeniable proof. Not hardly. Former kicker Katie Hneida accuses a former player of raping her. Yet no names, no specifics have been offered by the accuser. Finally, the most recent allegation involved a young woman who, after admittedly drinking copious amounts of alcohol, passes out and wakes up the next morning at home, with physical proof of a rape. Since she remembers speaking to "two large black men" at the bar the night before, she assumes they're football players, hence, one of them MUST have raped her. In the court of law, DNA evidence has already exonerated one of the accused from the rape. The investigation is still underway on an unnamed player.
These are the facts. Yet, in the court of public opinion, ALL CU players are culpable for the alleged crimes of a few. The allegations are being used by some organizations such as NOW and MESA (Mission to End Sexual Assault) as fact. This isn't surprising. This has become a men vs. women issue in many arenas. These organizations tend to take these, if not all, allegations at face value as true. Whereas men, knowing a simple false allegation can, and has, ruined lives, tend to be more cautious, waiting for more facts, for more proof. Yet the court of public opinion turns on more than simple allegations. Often times, left unchecked the accused themselves do more harm to their case than they help. Gary Barnett's comments regarding the abilities of Hneida instantly demonized him as the culprit in this growing scandal. He was responding to a direct question, posed by a reporter, regarding Hneida's abilities. He responded with truth. She isn't good. He never made the connection that her abilities, or lack thereof justified a rape. However his candidness placed him in a nearly no-win situation. Answer truthfully, he's painted as an evil man, overlooking every misstep of his players. Answer dishonestly, he's crucified as a disingenuous man, covering his ass. Decline to answer the question, again he's condemned as guilty, by those who'll ask, why not answer? What's he hiding?
News agencies play the role of attorney's in this court; the public plays judge and jury. A similar link can be made to the JonBenet Ramsey case, also out of Boulder a few years back. The parents looked guilty, they "acted" guilty, according to many in the media. The facts were muddy, the questions numerous. In the absence of a real bad guy in the story, the attorney's went to work. Various public appearances by the Ramsey's only added to the frenzy. And it was a frenzy, much like the current CU scandal is. I'll get to that in a second.
Even in the aftermath of Columbine, the court of public opinion rallied against the very men and women who risked their lives to save the students and faculty in the school on that awful day. Mistakes were made, heads must roll.
And that, in essence, is the REAL purpose of the court of public opinion, isn't it? In the court of law, life isn't black and white. Sometimes the bad guys don't get their just desserts. Sometimes, the bad guys aren't the bad guys after all. Facts, proof, testimony, the law clears the accused, often to the chagrin of the public. After all, the public has decided the accused is guilty, based on leaked facts and reporters with agendas; isn't that enough?
There's no such murkiness in the court of public opinion. In this court, the public speaks, it's will be done. There HAS to be a bad guy, someone we can collectively point to and lay blame. It makes us feel good about ourselves...it can make us feel safer if evil is overcome, we can stand firm on our moral high ground if the accused, regardless of facts, bows to the sword of justice. In the absence of the real bad guys after Columbine, the public went after the only ones left standing, the police, the school administration, the parents of the killers. SOMEONE had to take a fall, since the real killers weren't around to face the public's wrath.
At CU, Barnett has become the focus of fire-breathing feminists, anti-CU types and politicos either wilting under public pressure or looking to make a name for themselves. By proxy, the current players have all come under fire regardless of their character or personal actions. All CU players, CU administration, CU males in general, fans of CU, are somehow culpable in the alleged actions of two or three players. Is this to say that NOTHING went on at CU? No, on the contrary, I'm quite sure that there are players in the CU program who don't quite understand that no means no. Just as there are players at other programs, as well as men in general walking campuses around the country who don't get it either. Instead of bashing a program that has worked hard to keep its players out of trouble, perhaps NOW should be looking at the culture of alcoholism and partying that pervades CU and countless other Universities nationwide.
Instead of automatically believing every accusation put forth, perhaps NOW should fight vigorously for tougher sentences against women who falsely accuse men of rape. Cut down on the false allegations, and perhaps more allegations will be taken more seriously. A simple acknowledgment that sometimes accusations are false is a start. In the court of public opinion, it's better a few innocents take the fall than let one guilty person go free. Quite the opposite of the court of law whose motto is, better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to unjustly convict one innocent.
As for the media. As a longtime veteran of newsrooms from newspaper to television, I can say this with confidence. Time is against them, especially in TV. Complicated stories are boiled down to mere seconds. Not nearly enough time to clearly spell out facts, let alone both sides of the story. Plus the line between news and entertainment has been so blurred, it's hard for the public to tell the difference. between opinion and news anymore. Pundits such as Rush Limbaugh, newspaper columnists, tv newsmagazine hosts, use facts to support a single opinion, or prove a specific agenda. This opinion, is often mistaken by many in the public as hard news. Plus, and this may sound flippant, but it's not, tv people are lazy. Newspaper reporters do most of the legwork, gathering information that often ends up on your 5pm newscast. Producers, particularly, facing tight deadlines working in a high-stress environment, sometimes will cut corners. Have a big news story, great, it fill one minute of my newscast, thank you. This means a big story remains a big story, at the expense of other news. It's an odd game, producers and reporters giving the public information on a story perceived to be big. Adding layer upon layer until the story has grown to such proportions it becomes a frenzy, too big to handle. Each agency trying to outdo the other to get the big scoop in the big story.
I'm not indicting the news media, they're doing their job. I'm not even indicting feminist organizations or even the public for that matter. I'll be the first to say that if any of the allegations at CU can be proven, action should be taken, criminal or civil. But to simply settle the civil lawsuits currently facing the University of Colorado, as one Professor urged CU to do recently, is silly. To do so would admit guilt. Why would anyone admit guilt without real proof? The accusers have already won in the court of public opinion. CU will wear the stain of this scandal for years to come, most likely. Even if the accusations turn out to be untrue, the cloud of suspicion will hover over the team for a very long time. CU can't win in the public court. It still has a chance to win in the true court of law. Why would they throw that away by settling? Don't do it, Hoffman, don't do it, CU. By settling, you submit to the public court and send a message to any person hoping to get rich quick that a simple allegation is all that is needed to crumble a fine institution. Make accuser and accused alike face the music in the court of law, where at least some semblance of law and order still exists.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Hello again Friends. It's another visit from the Phantom Blogger. I've been busy and have resisted posting everyday just to post...sometimes I just don't have much to say. However I now have about a BILLION things bubbling up inside of me (and I don't think it's just something I ate).
To start, ANY discussion this week would be remiss if it didn't address the Superbowl. Before I get to what everyone wants to talk about, I HAVE to say something about the game. I nearly fell off my chair Sunday night when I heard the "D" word being bandied about regarding the Pats.
Listen, New England is a decent football team. They've won 15 straight and are Superbowl champs for the second time in three years. But, excuse me...DYNASTY?! Perhaps it's because I'm just resentful that a very average quarterback has two rings. Tom Brady is not a great QB. He's the benefactor of a good system, quality receivers and an above average defense. Let's not forget, Brady and the Pats ALSO benefited from one of the most BONEHEADED plays I've ever seen in a game followed by Roman Numerals.
What the HELL was Kasay thinking when he booted that final kick out of bounds. There's no explanation. The kicker cost the Panthers the game. It's just another example of the world's luckiest team getting another break, whether it's from the refs or from the other team's mistakes. Once again, the Pats got outplayed but lucked their way into a victory. No worries...things have a way of working out, and I'll be surprised to see the Pats challenging for a championship next year.
Now, onto The Jackson Jubilee. First can I say this? AAAAUUUUUUUGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
Once again American Puritanicalism raises its ugly head. It's a booby with a pasty. What did you expect? MTV was producing the half time festivities. The song was about having sex, the entire CULTURE surrounding the half time show should have been a warning to people this was possible. This is going to sound like Republican bashing, however, this argument crosses ALL political and social lines. What's REALLY bothering me is the continued argument that is somehow the precursor to the decline of America as we know and a sympton of the unraveling of the American Moral Ethic. This religious fury has been bolstered by, sadly, an extreme social conservatism that has pervaded every corner of American society. It's a continuation of Tipper Gore's activism against song lyrics and won't stop until America is a theocracy.
Yeah, yeah, I know, it sounds like Chicken Little crying that the sky is falling. But someone HAS to be vigilant. Too many conservatives are quick to want to censure ANY criticism of our government, when, these were many of the same people actually accusing Clinton of murder. Yet, when one of the Nation's most well known and respected White House journalists asks a difficult question of W, she's relegated to the back of the room, and censured by White House staffers.
Helen Thomas has been covering the White House for over twenty years. When she had the audacity to ask King George the II why he refuses to separate church and state, she was removed from the press conference. It was the first press conference W held at the White House and clearly has set the tone by this administration that religion will dictate how Americans live their lives, run our country and establish our international relations. And not just any religion, but Christianity, W's brand of Christianity.
I bring this up, because the American Christian church hasn't been so bolstered since Pat Robertson made a run for the White House. Now Churches recieve our tax dollars, regardless of our religious affiliation. Parochial school receive our tax dollars regardless of our religious affiliation. While most Americans continue to lose their rights and freedoms, religious organization are being bolstered, supported and even used as a tool for political gain.
Just today in the Colorado Legislature (Tuesday, February 3rd) the predominantly republican House and Senate voted down a bill that would have allowed city clerks to issue civil union licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Upon its rejection, Broomfield Republican Shawn Mitchell said it was, "a victory for God and America."
This is the SAME legislature that recently proposed a bill, (Republican Lola Spradley sponsored the bill) to shut down ANY establishment that sold books, magazines or any form of literature or videos deemed "inappropriate, offensive or pornographic". The Bill was aimed at two particular establishments, one, a coffee shop selling a t-shirt that said, quite simply, "Fuck You". The other establishment is our own Tattered Cover Bookstore. Spradley, a huge supporter of the religious right, President Bush and the Patriot Act, has openly criticized the Tattered Cover for being "unamerican" for not openly handing over purchase records to the police during investigations. Spradley made it clear, bookstores "like the Tattered Cover" would, could, and should be shut down for selling books deemed offensive and pornographics. In other words, don't sell Tom Saywer, To Kill a Mockingbird or 50 Things You wanted to Know about Sex but were afraid to ask, otherwise you'll be shut down.
I suppose Spradley and other right-wing, religious zealots would be perfectly happy with a bookstore consisting of nothing more than the Declaration of Independence, The Bible and numerous copies of Ronald Reagan's biography.
This may sound like a total attack against republicans, but it's not. The problem is, the republican party has been hijacked by the extremists. Much like Democrats accused the Democratic party of being hijacked by environmental and social extremists in years past. Seriously, if the GOP weren't currently dominated by the Christian conservative movement, I could be, probably WOULD be a republican.
I believe in economic conservatism. However, I have a hard time, in fact I find it impossible, to support a party, ANY party, who rules through the Bible, or the Torah or any religious document. Extreme social conservatism is an extremely dangerous road to take, one which America is currently travelling down.
Hammer Clinton all you like, but he brought the Democratic party distinctly to the center. Bush and his "hawks" have moved the country distinctly to the right...the far right...by allowing religion to be used as a basis for potentially life and society-changing decisions.
I'm angry, because there was once a time, before 9/11, when Americans actually used to believe in freedom, discourse and compromise. No longer. Spurred on by a gunslinging Texan in the White House, other republicans have followed his lead of no discourse, no compromise, utalitarianism.
I can only hope that there are independently-thinking republicans and conservatives who still believe in the GOP as the party of small government, and in the rights of individual Americans and the freedoms guranteed under the constitution.
There IS still room in government for political discourse and agreement. Unfortunately many politicians on both sides view compromise as a sign of weakness. Republicans are encouraged by the typical closed-minded thinking espoused by religion, where the word of God isn't open to discussion, and therefore compromise is not an option. Democrats spurred on by revenge, seeking some sort of retribution for perceived wrongs forced upon the party by Republicans at the end of the last session.
Clearly, there was a nationwide power grab, orchestrated by the White House in an effort to, if not eliminate the Democratic party, then to so severely weaken it, it would pose no threat in the GOP's efforts to impose its will on the American People.
Democrats have to understand, the cannot lower themselves to the level of the extreme religious right currently running the GOP. Instead, they MUST find those republicans who represent their constituents and NOT their church. In much the same way Reagan, Bush Senior and even Clinton were able to find ways to bring portions of the two sides of the aisle together, Democrats must do the same. I say democrats because W, Cheney and Rumsfeld have no interest in bipartisanship. It's their way or the highway. This is a dangerous road to take.
America is hanging by a thread. If the current administration and republicans across the country continue to force religion upon every aspect of American life, there WILL be a rebellion. Nothing separates faster than religion, and by using this diversive quality to shape policy and law it will divide the nation.
I don't think Bush is stupid, though. He will already go down as the only US president to start a pre-emptive war (attacking a country posing no direct threat to the United States), I don't think he wants to go down in history as the President that starts America on the way to its second Civil War.
How's THAT for a happy Tuesday?
To start, ANY discussion this week would be remiss if it didn't address the Superbowl. Before I get to what everyone wants to talk about, I HAVE to say something about the game. I nearly fell off my chair Sunday night when I heard the "D" word being bandied about regarding the Pats.
Listen, New England is a decent football team. They've won 15 straight and are Superbowl champs for the second time in three years. But, excuse me...DYNASTY?! Perhaps it's because I'm just resentful that a very average quarterback has two rings. Tom Brady is not a great QB. He's the benefactor of a good system, quality receivers and an above average defense. Let's not forget, Brady and the Pats ALSO benefited from one of the most BONEHEADED plays I've ever seen in a game followed by Roman Numerals.
What the HELL was Kasay thinking when he booted that final kick out of bounds. There's no explanation. The kicker cost the Panthers the game. It's just another example of the world's luckiest team getting another break, whether it's from the refs or from the other team's mistakes. Once again, the Pats got outplayed but lucked their way into a victory. No worries...things have a way of working out, and I'll be surprised to see the Pats challenging for a championship next year.
Now, onto The Jackson Jubilee. First can I say this? AAAAUUUUUUUGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
Once again American Puritanicalism raises its ugly head. It's a booby with a pasty. What did you expect? MTV was producing the half time festivities. The song was about having sex, the entire CULTURE surrounding the half time show should have been a warning to people this was possible. This is going to sound like Republican bashing, however, this argument crosses ALL political and social lines. What's REALLY bothering me is the continued argument that is somehow the precursor to the decline of America as we know and a sympton of the unraveling of the American Moral Ethic. This religious fury has been bolstered by, sadly, an extreme social conservatism that has pervaded every corner of American society. It's a continuation of Tipper Gore's activism against song lyrics and won't stop until America is a theocracy.
Yeah, yeah, I know, it sounds like Chicken Little crying that the sky is falling. But someone HAS to be vigilant. Too many conservatives are quick to want to censure ANY criticism of our government, when, these were many of the same people actually accusing Clinton of murder. Yet, when one of the Nation's most well known and respected White House journalists asks a difficult question of W, she's relegated to the back of the room, and censured by White House staffers.
Helen Thomas has been covering the White House for over twenty years. When she had the audacity to ask King George the II why he refuses to separate church and state, she was removed from the press conference. It was the first press conference W held at the White House and clearly has set the tone by this administration that religion will dictate how Americans live their lives, run our country and establish our international relations. And not just any religion, but Christianity, W's brand of Christianity.
I bring this up, because the American Christian church hasn't been so bolstered since Pat Robertson made a run for the White House. Now Churches recieve our tax dollars, regardless of our religious affiliation. Parochial school receive our tax dollars regardless of our religious affiliation. While most Americans continue to lose their rights and freedoms, religious organization are being bolstered, supported and even used as a tool for political gain.
Just today in the Colorado Legislature (Tuesday, February 3rd) the predominantly republican House and Senate voted down a bill that would have allowed city clerks to issue civil union licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Upon its rejection, Broomfield Republican Shawn Mitchell said it was, "a victory for God and America."
This is the SAME legislature that recently proposed a bill, (Republican Lola Spradley sponsored the bill) to shut down ANY establishment that sold books, magazines or any form of literature or videos deemed "inappropriate, offensive or pornographic". The Bill was aimed at two particular establishments, one, a coffee shop selling a t-shirt that said, quite simply, "Fuck You". The other establishment is our own Tattered Cover Bookstore. Spradley, a huge supporter of the religious right, President Bush and the Patriot Act, has openly criticized the Tattered Cover for being "unamerican" for not openly handing over purchase records to the police during investigations. Spradley made it clear, bookstores "like the Tattered Cover" would, could, and should be shut down for selling books deemed offensive and pornographics. In other words, don't sell Tom Saywer, To Kill a Mockingbird or 50 Things You wanted to Know about Sex but were afraid to ask, otherwise you'll be shut down.
I suppose Spradley and other right-wing, religious zealots would be perfectly happy with a bookstore consisting of nothing more than the Declaration of Independence, The Bible and numerous copies of Ronald Reagan's biography.
This may sound like a total attack against republicans, but it's not. The problem is, the republican party has been hijacked by the extremists. Much like Democrats accused the Democratic party of being hijacked by environmental and social extremists in years past. Seriously, if the GOP weren't currently dominated by the Christian conservative movement, I could be, probably WOULD be a republican.
I believe in economic conservatism. However, I have a hard time, in fact I find it impossible, to support a party, ANY party, who rules through the Bible, or the Torah or any religious document. Extreme social conservatism is an extremely dangerous road to take, one which America is currently travelling down.
Hammer Clinton all you like, but he brought the Democratic party distinctly to the center. Bush and his "hawks" have moved the country distinctly to the right...the far right...by allowing religion to be used as a basis for potentially life and society-changing decisions.
I'm angry, because there was once a time, before 9/11, when Americans actually used to believe in freedom, discourse and compromise. No longer. Spurred on by a gunslinging Texan in the White House, other republicans have followed his lead of no discourse, no compromise, utalitarianism.
I can only hope that there are independently-thinking republicans and conservatives who still believe in the GOP as the party of small government, and in the rights of individual Americans and the freedoms guranteed under the constitution.
There IS still room in government for political discourse and agreement. Unfortunately many politicians on both sides view compromise as a sign of weakness. Republicans are encouraged by the typical closed-minded thinking espoused by religion, where the word of God isn't open to discussion, and therefore compromise is not an option. Democrats spurred on by revenge, seeking some sort of retribution for perceived wrongs forced upon the party by Republicans at the end of the last session.
Clearly, there was a nationwide power grab, orchestrated by the White House in an effort to, if not eliminate the Democratic party, then to so severely weaken it, it would pose no threat in the GOP's efforts to impose its will on the American People.
Democrats have to understand, the cannot lower themselves to the level of the extreme religious right currently running the GOP. Instead, they MUST find those republicans who represent their constituents and NOT their church. In much the same way Reagan, Bush Senior and even Clinton were able to find ways to bring portions of the two sides of the aisle together, Democrats must do the same. I say democrats because W, Cheney and Rumsfeld have no interest in bipartisanship. It's their way or the highway. This is a dangerous road to take.
America is hanging by a thread. If the current administration and republicans across the country continue to force religion upon every aspect of American life, there WILL be a rebellion. Nothing separates faster than religion, and by using this diversive quality to shape policy and law it will divide the nation.
I don't think Bush is stupid, though. He will already go down as the only US president to start a pre-emptive war (attacking a country posing no direct threat to the United States), I don't think he wants to go down in history as the President that starts America on the way to its second Civil War.
How's THAT for a happy Tuesday?
Monday, December 22, 2003
"Unlike his predecessors, Bush openly brags aboutnot reading newspapers, watching TV news or TV newsmagazines -dismissing the news media as unworthy of his time."
PETER JOHNSON: USA TODAY
Okay...I TRY to keep an open mind about "W", honest. I don't think he's as stupid as some would claim. I even think his propensity for mispronouncing words like "nuclear" and such is even kind of amusing and would probably account for his popularity with many average Americans. As we all know, most Americans are less than competent with things like...grammar, and vocabulary. I'm on record for agreeing with a number of his domestic policies and to grudgingly admit that while I still vehemently disagree with the theory of a pre-emptive war for peace (Orwellian in it's philosophy) the removal of Saddam could become a stabilizing factor in the Middle East.
But I HAVE to draw the line here. FOR GOD'S SAKE...how does a president function by shutting himself off from the news? Let's assume he shuns the doesn't like seeing pundits hammering his administration on the networks. Let's assume he probably gets thorough and accurate information on the Iraq situation from his own people. Let's even assume the president is kept relatively well informed on most important domestic and world events. Does this excuse the man from keeping an finger on the pulse of information his constituency (namely the American voting public) is getting?
I don't get it. As the leader of the most powerful country in the world one would think he would be extraordinarly interested in what information the public is being fed. As a journalist, I'll be the first to admit that many news programs can and are biased or flawed in some respects, however there is a value and substance to the information being disseminated to the general public. I'm not saying the president must watch hours of local news broadcasts, that's just not possible. But how difficult would it be to watch a few during the course of a week? AND NOT news from within the beltway. Anyone who's spent time in Washington knows the views and information from Washington broadcasts are skewed, again, from that of the rest of the country. Pick up a copy of Newsweek, Time...hell, pick up People.
This may seem frivolous to you, but I believe it's extremely important that our president remain in touch with the general American, this means understanding what they're reading, seeing and listening to in their everyday lives. Before you right-wingers out there poo poo me for asking for the impossible, may I remind you your idol, one, Mr. Reagan made a daily habit of reviewing publications from around the country, voraciously reading the op-ed pages from newspapers and magazines from around the U.S. He understood the value of listening to the voices of his supporters, and, even more important, those of his detractors.
By remaining isolated in his shell of hawks, by remaining insulated from the river of mass communication by which most Americans take in on a daily basis, the president is in danger of losing touch with those who support him most. Perhaps this could explain his complete lack of detente regarding international relations. By dismissing news as being "unworthy of his time" the president comes across as both an elitist, and, ironically, as just another ignorant American.
ACK...didn't mean to ramble on about that for so long...A few more rambles...It's almost Xmas in Denver...isn't there supposed to be snow on the ground...NOT 60 FRIKKIN' degrees!?
Can someone just shoot Malvo and put an end to all of this?
Beating Indy in the the bubble was great...now, a show of hands who thinks the Broncs can do it again if the two meet up again in the playoffs...yeah...thought so. Well...one playoff game is better than none.
A quick note to fans of the Colorado Farmer's College (also known as CSU) Hey hicks...in case you didn't notice...that little guy running all over the Colts Sunday night was from the Big 12...a LEGITIMATE football conference. Can we all now quit whining about why Cecil Sapp isn't on the regular roster? Cecil would've been hammered by the Colts...Quentin, on the other hand, is used to big time football, and showed it Sunday in Indy.
Same goes for that QB of yours...Van Punk...Here's betting the dude never sees the ass-end of a center in a real NFL game.
Anyone else wondering what the hell has happened to Tony Zarella? (this only meaningfull to Colorado readers)
For 32 dollars...Chatueneaux Du Paup is a hellavu bottle of wine.
I can only imagine (thank goodness) that Earthquakes suck.
The Broncos (of Boise State fame) may be a mid major team...but at least they play on a funky field.
I'm not sure if I should be happy or angered at the Supreme Court's ruling regarding political contributions. On one hand...money shouldn't be such a force in deciding elections (oh if we only lived in a perfect world) and yet...I believe in this country a person should have the right to donate what the want to any campaign they choose. hmmm...tough call...not like I expect it to make much of a difference in the next presidential campaign...money will again win out...remember, it's the economy stupid, and I believe most Americans will vote with their wallet, regardless of how the war is progressing.
School vouchers...okay...you say you already pay for education, you should have the choice of where your child attends school? Agreed. And, as a matter of fact, you already have that choice...I live in Denver, If I wanted to, I could send my child to Cherry Creek (assuming there's space, of course, just like in a private school) Remember, education isn't a luxury...it's a right in this country, if you disagree, then you wouldn't mind if ALL spending for education is stopped...let families fend for themselves...and if they can't pay, then their child dsn't go to school...is that right? The current system isn't perfect...in fact it's badly flawed...however, taking my tax dollars and handing it over to schools that teach religion is wrong. Furthermore, since these are private schools, there is little to no oversight of these schools. In other words, these schools can do whatever they want to do with MY TAX dollars. The schools don't answer to a board, to the state, they don't answer to the taxpayers. At least in public schools, I have a voice in how the schools are run, and if I don't like it, I can work to try and make a change in the public school system. It's my right, and within my power as a taxpayer. As far as I can tell...by opening private schools to anyone and everyone, no longer makes it a private school. It's a publicly funded institution. If this is the case, I'd be ALL FOR school vouchers, just as long as they have to answer to the state school board, and the taxpayers in terms of curriculum, practices and procedures. Not fair, you say? Nope...but if my money is going to support a school, then I should have a voice in how that school is run...if you don't like, don't take my money...simple.
Soooo...The Colorado Republicans didn't like the efficient, well-though out and fair district boundary lines drawn up by a Colorado court. Instead, they actively and purposefully moved ahead with a last minute ploy to essentially tip the scales to their advantage. This is not only reprehensible...it's downright criminal. If the Republicans were TRULY acting in the best interests of Colorado citizens, they would have gone through the redistricting process...and left the districts exactly how the courts designed them. This would have done TWO things...it would have fulfilled their urgent need for constitutional accuracy AND it would have done so in a fair and balanced manner. Instead they took the opportunity to blatantly abuse their power and try to effectively negate the votes of hundreds of thousands of Colorado voters. What happened was wrong, regardless of which side had done it, it would still be wrong. Here's a thought...on a national scale it doesn't look like the republicans have much to worry about from the Dems, however on a state scale, the Colorado Republicans could be in trouble. The most recent wilderness legislation signed by bush has angered a large majority of Colorado republicans who, at least on the state level, really do care about the environment. It's not a longshot to say the republicans could lose their hold on the Colorado Western Slope which would shift the balance of power back to the dems, or, at the very least, place republicans in power who are vastly less partisan than the current crop under the golden dome at Colfax and Broadway.
Can someone just shoot Michael Jackson and put an end to all of this.
Allright, I guess that's it...Sorry it's been so long since my last post...been working on a freelance project that kept me busy for a while...did you know you really never have to leave your home to survive? You don't, trust me.
Hope everyone has a wonderful holiday season...I'll try to post more often.
PETER JOHNSON: USA TODAY
Okay...I TRY to keep an open mind about "W", honest. I don't think he's as stupid as some would claim. I even think his propensity for mispronouncing words like "nuclear" and such is even kind of amusing and would probably account for his popularity with many average Americans. As we all know, most Americans are less than competent with things like...grammar, and vocabulary. I'm on record for agreeing with a number of his domestic policies and to grudgingly admit that while I still vehemently disagree with the theory of a pre-emptive war for peace (Orwellian in it's philosophy) the removal of Saddam could become a stabilizing factor in the Middle East.
But I HAVE to draw the line here. FOR GOD'S SAKE...how does a president function by shutting himself off from the news? Let's assume he shuns the doesn't like seeing pundits hammering his administration on the networks. Let's assume he probably gets thorough and accurate information on the Iraq situation from his own people. Let's even assume the president is kept relatively well informed on most important domestic and world events. Does this excuse the man from keeping an finger on the pulse of information his constituency (namely the American voting public) is getting?
I don't get it. As the leader of the most powerful country in the world one would think he would be extraordinarly interested in what information the public is being fed. As a journalist, I'll be the first to admit that many news programs can and are biased or flawed in some respects, however there is a value and substance to the information being disseminated to the general public. I'm not saying the president must watch hours of local news broadcasts, that's just not possible. But how difficult would it be to watch a few during the course of a week? AND NOT news from within the beltway. Anyone who's spent time in Washington knows the views and information from Washington broadcasts are skewed, again, from that of the rest of the country. Pick up a copy of Newsweek, Time...hell, pick up People.
This may seem frivolous to you, but I believe it's extremely important that our president remain in touch with the general American, this means understanding what they're reading, seeing and listening to in their everyday lives. Before you right-wingers out there poo poo me for asking for the impossible, may I remind you your idol, one, Mr. Reagan made a daily habit of reviewing publications from around the country, voraciously reading the op-ed pages from newspapers and magazines from around the U.S. He understood the value of listening to the voices of his supporters, and, even more important, those of his detractors.
By remaining isolated in his shell of hawks, by remaining insulated from the river of mass communication by which most Americans take in on a daily basis, the president is in danger of losing touch with those who support him most. Perhaps this could explain his complete lack of detente regarding international relations. By dismissing news as being "unworthy of his time" the president comes across as both an elitist, and, ironically, as just another ignorant American.
ACK...didn't mean to ramble on about that for so long...A few more rambles...It's almost Xmas in Denver...isn't there supposed to be snow on the ground...NOT 60 FRIKKIN' degrees!?
Can someone just shoot Malvo and put an end to all of this?
Beating Indy in the the bubble was great...now, a show of hands who thinks the Broncs can do it again if the two meet up again in the playoffs...yeah...thought so. Well...one playoff game is better than none.
A quick note to fans of the Colorado Farmer's College (also known as CSU) Hey hicks...in case you didn't notice...that little guy running all over the Colts Sunday night was from the Big 12...a LEGITIMATE football conference. Can we all now quit whining about why Cecil Sapp isn't on the regular roster? Cecil would've been hammered by the Colts...Quentin, on the other hand, is used to big time football, and showed it Sunday in Indy.
Same goes for that QB of yours...Van Punk...Here's betting the dude never sees the ass-end of a center in a real NFL game.
Anyone else wondering what the hell has happened to Tony Zarella? (this only meaningfull to Colorado readers)
For 32 dollars...Chatueneaux Du Paup is a hellavu bottle of wine.
I can only imagine (thank goodness) that Earthquakes suck.
The Broncos (of Boise State fame) may be a mid major team...but at least they play on a funky field.
I'm not sure if I should be happy or angered at the Supreme Court's ruling regarding political contributions. On one hand...money shouldn't be such a force in deciding elections (oh if we only lived in a perfect world) and yet...I believe in this country a person should have the right to donate what the want to any campaign they choose. hmmm...tough call...not like I expect it to make much of a difference in the next presidential campaign...money will again win out...remember, it's the economy stupid, and I believe most Americans will vote with their wallet, regardless of how the war is progressing.
School vouchers...okay...you say you already pay for education, you should have the choice of where your child attends school? Agreed. And, as a matter of fact, you already have that choice...I live in Denver, If I wanted to, I could send my child to Cherry Creek (assuming there's space, of course, just like in a private school) Remember, education isn't a luxury...it's a right in this country, if you disagree, then you wouldn't mind if ALL spending for education is stopped...let families fend for themselves...and if they can't pay, then their child dsn't go to school...is that right? The current system isn't perfect...in fact it's badly flawed...however, taking my tax dollars and handing it over to schools that teach religion is wrong. Furthermore, since these are private schools, there is little to no oversight of these schools. In other words, these schools can do whatever they want to do with MY TAX dollars. The schools don't answer to a board, to the state, they don't answer to the taxpayers. At least in public schools, I have a voice in how the schools are run, and if I don't like it, I can work to try and make a change in the public school system. It's my right, and within my power as a taxpayer. As far as I can tell...by opening private schools to anyone and everyone, no longer makes it a private school. It's a publicly funded institution. If this is the case, I'd be ALL FOR school vouchers, just as long as they have to answer to the state school board, and the taxpayers in terms of curriculum, practices and procedures. Not fair, you say? Nope...but if my money is going to support a school, then I should have a voice in how that school is run...if you don't like, don't take my money...simple.
Soooo...The Colorado Republicans didn't like the efficient, well-though out and fair district boundary lines drawn up by a Colorado court. Instead, they actively and purposefully moved ahead with a last minute ploy to essentially tip the scales to their advantage. This is not only reprehensible...it's downright criminal. If the Republicans were TRULY acting in the best interests of Colorado citizens, they would have gone through the redistricting process...and left the districts exactly how the courts designed them. This would have done TWO things...it would have fulfilled their urgent need for constitutional accuracy AND it would have done so in a fair and balanced manner. Instead they took the opportunity to blatantly abuse their power and try to effectively negate the votes of hundreds of thousands of Colorado voters. What happened was wrong, regardless of which side had done it, it would still be wrong. Here's a thought...on a national scale it doesn't look like the republicans have much to worry about from the Dems, however on a state scale, the Colorado Republicans could be in trouble. The most recent wilderness legislation signed by bush has angered a large majority of Colorado republicans who, at least on the state level, really do care about the environment. It's not a longshot to say the republicans could lose their hold on the Colorado Western Slope which would shift the balance of power back to the dems, or, at the very least, place republicans in power who are vastly less partisan than the current crop under the golden dome at Colfax and Broadway.
Can someone just shoot Michael Jackson and put an end to all of this.
Allright, I guess that's it...Sorry it's been so long since my last post...been working on a freelance project that kept me busy for a while...did you know you really never have to leave your home to survive? You don't, trust me.
Hope everyone has a wonderful holiday season...I'll try to post more often.
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
Procrastination. The bane of my existence. While I should be working on a freelance video project for U.S. Lacrosse, I sit watching Seinfeld and thinking about all the Xmas shopping I still need to do.
It's been a while since my first post, but now that I've figured out how to edit and publish new posts, expect many more to come.
First, let me say I had a fantastic experience at the recent gathering of Bloggers at the Wynkoop Brewery. Met a host of interesting and very nice people. Thank you for the experience. There was much beer drinking and many challenging and interesting conversations and arguments...FANTASTIC!
Just a few thoughts and comments. Well, really, comments on two specific issues. I had an awsome conversation with numerous individuals regarding the War on Iraq and the struggle in Jerusalem, namely the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I have no love for Saddam, or for Arafat, or terrorists, let's make that clear. And while I'm pleased U.S. troops have been able to free an oppressed people, I seriously question our president's motives behind the military action. I'm distressed the United States has now taken on the mantle of forcefully shoving democracy down other culture's throats, at any cost. Our operation had nothing to do with WMD's, or Iraq's connection to 9/11. As is painfully clear, both of those motives have proven to be either a fallacy, or an outright lie on the behalf of our current administration. There are no WMD's, and so far, no proven connection with 9/11. The United States set a disgusting precedence by invading Iraq. I can't help but think of Orwelle's 1984...war for peace. My biggest concern is that the Iraq war turned our attention away from more pressing issues in Afghanistan, Iran and Korea. We have also incited an entire new generation of terrorists who's hatred of the U.S. and what we stand for is burned ever deeper with every attack, every Iraqi death, every blatant evangelistic strike against Islam.
Bush has taken his christian evangelical philosophy and seems to be applying it to international politics. Ironically, as Bush is championing his crusade for democracy worldwide, at the same time, he seems to have an almost isolationist view regarding any country who dares to disagree with his administration. His actions seem to say, "We don't like you, don't need you, don't want you." And in the short term, he may be right. However for there to be any real peace in the Middle East, it is going to take a worldwide effort to not only persuade the combatants, but then to monitor whatever progress is made. Which leads me to my next thought. Democracy can't be forced on a people. It is a process which takes time and MUST, by viture of it's very nature, come from the people themselves. We have a better chance of seeing democracy in Iran before we ever see a TRUE democracy (read: not an administration puppet government) in Iraq. Because the people in Iran are actively working towards overthrowing the current gvt, any new form of gvt. in Iran will therefore be a real creation of and widely supported by the general population. One can only hope, the Hawks in the White House will recognize this and allow the people of Iraq to take true power and build a government of their own. While I may not have supported the decision to go to war, we're in now, and we must now see this through to a successfull end.
As for the Jerusalem conflict. My hope was that the recent Geneva Accord would have allowed the two warring governments to begin to reach some kind of an agreement. Palestine wants an unencumbered country, not broken up by settlements. Israel wants an end to terrorism and will not allow the refugees a right of return. The Accord addressed these issues in a fair manner. One thing I think we can agree on...Palestinians, the people, need to remove Arafat from power. Sadly, this won't happen until they can begin to see some benefit from doing so. Unfortunately, as long as Sharon remains in power in Israel, this won't happen. There is an unbelievable trust gap between the Israeli people and Palestinians. Some of that trust gap can be closed if the two leaders can be replaced with men of vision and the ability to reach some common ground. On a person to person basis, both Palestinians and Israelis want peace. There is no argument that the terrorist attacks on the Israelis is wrong. However, to color ALL Palestinians and even Arabs as wholeheartedly against the Israelis is also wrong. There's no way to know, but I believe had Sharon not continued with the illegal settlements, had Sharon not even been elected, many of the terrorist attacks probably would never have happened. Yes, there are some Palestinians and some Arabs who's main purpose in life is to see the complete destruction of Israel. Just as there are some Israelis who want to see the end of Islam and the block of a Palestinian state. Many don't color all Israelis with the same brush they do Arabs and Palestinians. Nor do they color all Christians with the same brush they would with "Christians" who murder and terrorize in the name of the lord. Furthermore, this is a conflict that's been brewing for centuries. We, as a country, cannot simply step into the fray and believe we can solve their problems in a matter of a few months or years. Peace, like democracy, MUST come from the people. There IS no simple roadmap to peace in the Middle East. Even the Geneva Accord is just a beacon, a flicker of light and hope in the darkness of death and destruction.
This may sound callous, but, frankly, our unfounded support of Israel is not only unfounded, but in the long run, more harmful to eventual peace between these two people's. Perhaps, and I know many will disagree, but perhaps the best thing we can do as a nation, is to step away from the battle completely. let them continue to kill each other. Israel has the money and power and technology to defend itself...the Palestinians have the backing of various Arab nations...including, mind you, our supposed "ally" Saudi Arabia. (don't get me started, if there was a country we probably SHOULD have invaded, it was S.A...but that's another post)
In the end, the best man wins...or they both get so tired of killing each other, they find a way to discover a lasting peace.
There's so much more to discuss on this issue...but this is already a long post. I Do have comments on Bush's rejuvination of the space race, school voucher issues, religion in general, and, of course, the Denver Broncos and Nuggets.
See ya later.
It's been a while since my first post, but now that I've figured out how to edit and publish new posts, expect many more to come.
First, let me say I had a fantastic experience at the recent gathering of Bloggers at the Wynkoop Brewery. Met a host of interesting and very nice people. Thank you for the experience. There was much beer drinking and many challenging and interesting conversations and arguments...FANTASTIC!
Just a few thoughts and comments. Well, really, comments on two specific issues. I had an awsome conversation with numerous individuals regarding the War on Iraq and the struggle in Jerusalem, namely the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I have no love for Saddam, or for Arafat, or terrorists, let's make that clear. And while I'm pleased U.S. troops have been able to free an oppressed people, I seriously question our president's motives behind the military action. I'm distressed the United States has now taken on the mantle of forcefully shoving democracy down other culture's throats, at any cost. Our operation had nothing to do with WMD's, or Iraq's connection to 9/11. As is painfully clear, both of those motives have proven to be either a fallacy, or an outright lie on the behalf of our current administration. There are no WMD's, and so far, no proven connection with 9/11. The United States set a disgusting precedence by invading Iraq. I can't help but think of Orwelle's 1984...war for peace. My biggest concern is that the Iraq war turned our attention away from more pressing issues in Afghanistan, Iran and Korea. We have also incited an entire new generation of terrorists who's hatred of the U.S. and what we stand for is burned ever deeper with every attack, every Iraqi death, every blatant evangelistic strike against Islam.
Bush has taken his christian evangelical philosophy and seems to be applying it to international politics. Ironically, as Bush is championing his crusade for democracy worldwide, at the same time, he seems to have an almost isolationist view regarding any country who dares to disagree with his administration. His actions seem to say, "We don't like you, don't need you, don't want you." And in the short term, he may be right. However for there to be any real peace in the Middle East, it is going to take a worldwide effort to not only persuade the combatants, but then to monitor whatever progress is made. Which leads me to my next thought. Democracy can't be forced on a people. It is a process which takes time and MUST, by viture of it's very nature, come from the people themselves. We have a better chance of seeing democracy in Iran before we ever see a TRUE democracy (read: not an administration puppet government) in Iraq. Because the people in Iran are actively working towards overthrowing the current gvt, any new form of gvt. in Iran will therefore be a real creation of and widely supported by the general population. One can only hope, the Hawks in the White House will recognize this and allow the people of Iraq to take true power and build a government of their own. While I may not have supported the decision to go to war, we're in now, and we must now see this through to a successfull end.
As for the Jerusalem conflict. My hope was that the recent Geneva Accord would have allowed the two warring governments to begin to reach some kind of an agreement. Palestine wants an unencumbered country, not broken up by settlements. Israel wants an end to terrorism and will not allow the refugees a right of return. The Accord addressed these issues in a fair manner. One thing I think we can agree on...Palestinians, the people, need to remove Arafat from power. Sadly, this won't happen until they can begin to see some benefit from doing so. Unfortunately, as long as Sharon remains in power in Israel, this won't happen. There is an unbelievable trust gap between the Israeli people and Palestinians. Some of that trust gap can be closed if the two leaders can be replaced with men of vision and the ability to reach some common ground. On a person to person basis, both Palestinians and Israelis want peace. There is no argument that the terrorist attacks on the Israelis is wrong. However, to color ALL Palestinians and even Arabs as wholeheartedly against the Israelis is also wrong. There's no way to know, but I believe had Sharon not continued with the illegal settlements, had Sharon not even been elected, many of the terrorist attacks probably would never have happened. Yes, there are some Palestinians and some Arabs who's main purpose in life is to see the complete destruction of Israel. Just as there are some Israelis who want to see the end of Islam and the block of a Palestinian state. Many don't color all Israelis with the same brush they do Arabs and Palestinians. Nor do they color all Christians with the same brush they would with "Christians" who murder and terrorize in the name of the lord. Furthermore, this is a conflict that's been brewing for centuries. We, as a country, cannot simply step into the fray and believe we can solve their problems in a matter of a few months or years. Peace, like democracy, MUST come from the people. There IS no simple roadmap to peace in the Middle East. Even the Geneva Accord is just a beacon, a flicker of light and hope in the darkness of death and destruction.
This may sound callous, but, frankly, our unfounded support of Israel is not only unfounded, but in the long run, more harmful to eventual peace between these two people's. Perhaps, and I know many will disagree, but perhaps the best thing we can do as a nation, is to step away from the battle completely. let them continue to kill each other. Israel has the money and power and technology to defend itself...the Palestinians have the backing of various Arab nations...including, mind you, our supposed "ally" Saudi Arabia. (don't get me started, if there was a country we probably SHOULD have invaded, it was S.A...but that's another post)
In the end, the best man wins...or they both get so tired of killing each other, they find a way to discover a lasting peace.
There's so much more to discuss on this issue...but this is already a long post. I Do have comments on Bush's rejuvination of the space race, school voucher issues, religion in general, and, of course, the Denver Broncos and Nuggets.
See ya later.
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Hello all.
First, thanks for checking out this blog, among the vast ocean of blogs apparently on the net. Just a quick note. This is a space for open dialogue. As a journalist I've spent my life looking for stories to tell. Like any other human being, I have personal biases and beliefs. However, I believe the best way for a person to grow and develop is to keep an open mind. From time to time, I will be posting my various opinions, thoughts, rants, etc. on a variety of subjects, from Entertainment, Michael Jackson and Journalism, to politics and even sports. Nothing is sacred. Just one man's view of the world. I would very much like to hear from you as well. I can be reached at cdgallegos01@earthlink.net. Drop me a line on any topic.
A little bit about me. I'm 33 years old, in Denver (a Colorado native) currently working as a freelance journalist for both print and broadcast entities. I've traveled extensively, am also a Professor of Communications at the University of Colorado (where I also graduated from in 1993.
An avid CU Buffs fan, Bronco fan and Nuggets fan, I even root for the Avalanche, even though hockey still remains a bit of a mystery to me.
Politically, I'm middle of the road. Fiscally, I'd probably be considered conservative, socially, a liberal, if you MUST add a tag. I disagree with the war on Iraq (which will be discussed at length, no doubt, in upcoming posts) but now that we're their and invested so heavily, we have to stick it out.
I have a natural distrust of authority and have ecclectic tastes in both art and music. I also have a fascination with ancient history and religion, although I'm not particularly religious myself.
I guess that's about it. Check back when you can, I'll have posts almost daily.
Look forward to sharing ideas, jokes and anything else you choose to share.
Thank you,
Chris Gallegos
First, thanks for checking out this blog, among the vast ocean of blogs apparently on the net. Just a quick note. This is a space for open dialogue. As a journalist I've spent my life looking for stories to tell. Like any other human being, I have personal biases and beliefs. However, I believe the best way for a person to grow and develop is to keep an open mind. From time to time, I will be posting my various opinions, thoughts, rants, etc. on a variety of subjects, from Entertainment, Michael Jackson and Journalism, to politics and even sports. Nothing is sacred. Just one man's view of the world. I would very much like to hear from you as well. I can be reached at cdgallegos01@earthlink.net. Drop me a line on any topic.
A little bit about me. I'm 33 years old, in Denver (a Colorado native) currently working as a freelance journalist for both print and broadcast entities. I've traveled extensively, am also a Professor of Communications at the University of Colorado (where I also graduated from in 1993.
An avid CU Buffs fan, Bronco fan and Nuggets fan, I even root for the Avalanche, even though hockey still remains a bit of a mystery to me.
Politically, I'm middle of the road. Fiscally, I'd probably be considered conservative, socially, a liberal, if you MUST add a tag. I disagree with the war on Iraq (which will be discussed at length, no doubt, in upcoming posts) but now that we're their and invested so heavily, we have to stick it out.
I have a natural distrust of authority and have ecclectic tastes in both art and music. I also have a fascination with ancient history and religion, although I'm not particularly religious myself.
I guess that's about it. Check back when you can, I'll have posts almost daily.
Look forward to sharing ideas, jokes and anything else you choose to share.
Thank you,
Chris Gallegos
