Both times I have read the actual New York Times newspaper (which I admit is like twice), I found the front page always accusing the Bush administration or anything to do with his policies a mistake.
But this article pointed more blame on the situation, and not the administration.
That is what I consider a credible and honorable news story: A story that mentions failures for a reason... Not to accuse SOMEONE, but SOMETHING.
Personally, I don't care to read what the "Bush administration" (a government not directly governed by President Bush) did, but what solutions and viewpoints there are available to solve the situation. I'm not interested in reading tabloid-like finger-pointing like I often see on CNN or FoxNews!
And I'm definately not interested in something I can't control or personally suggest a solution to.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
A Great New York Times Article Ripped to Shreds
Cheney Warns Pakistan to Act Against Terrorists
The lede starts with a visual protest of a disgruntled Pakistani government against a "dictation" by Vice President Dick Cheney. This is a great summary of the main point of the article, and is later revisited in the article.
The next paragraph explains in efficient detail on why this story is written, and why it becomes interesting to those interested in the world's government affairs. Most people reading this are interested in this genre of news based on the title, which suggests international politics.
Immediately following that paragraph, the story unfolds and more intricate details of the Vice President's visit.
First, it catches the reader's attention by intriguing the curiosity to government secrets, and also why the New York Times was one of the few that knew about his transportation to Afghanistan (which isn't answered).
Then, it explains the reason for other international readers to read the article: The decline in aid for the Pakistani role in the War on Terror.
Finally, the article ends without much of a conclusion. It briefly re-visited the protest by the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, but it then re-develops an off-topic detailing of the "secrecy" of the Vice President's travel to Pakistan, compared to other past Presidential examples of similar security circumstances.
But why re-visit the "secrecy"? Probably because the readers of ths article truly want to know about government secrets, to satisfy their hunger for conspiracy and again tabloid-like fingerpointing at President Bush and President Clinton (Clinton was probably added to that conspiracy-hungered paragraph to disqualify this article as an anti-Bush-administration bias story).
Call me crazy, but the end of the news story imploded when the writer had to add in an irrelevant conclusion (because it has nothing to do with title or introduction), just to satisfy anti-Bush administration conspiracy-theorists.
This is a great example of how the New Yorks Times editors in the hierarchy of the business are radically anti-Bush administration, because I believe that the little added snippet was edited and inserted into the article after the original writer passed in the draft... And a sloppy job at that, in my opinion.
The lede starts with a visual protest of a disgruntled Pakistani government against a "dictation" by Vice President Dick Cheney. This is a great summary of the main point of the article, and is later revisited in the article.
The next paragraph explains in efficient detail on why this story is written, and why it becomes interesting to those interested in the world's government affairs. Most people reading this are interested in this genre of news based on the title, which suggests international politics.
Immediately following that paragraph, the story unfolds and more intricate details of the Vice President's visit.
First, it catches the reader's attention by intriguing the curiosity to government secrets, and also why the New York Times was one of the few that knew about his transportation to Afghanistan (which isn't answered).
Then, it explains the reason for other international readers to read the article: The decline in aid for the Pakistani role in the War on Terror.
Finally, the article ends without much of a conclusion. It briefly re-visited the protest by the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, but it then re-develops an off-topic detailing of the "secrecy" of the Vice President's travel to Pakistan, compared to other past Presidential examples of similar security circumstances.
But why re-visit the "secrecy"? Probably because the readers of ths article truly want to know about government secrets, to satisfy their hunger for conspiracy and again tabloid-like fingerpointing at President Bush and President Clinton (Clinton was probably added to that conspiracy-hungered paragraph to disqualify this article as an anti-Bush-administration bias story).
Call me crazy, but the end of the news story imploded when the writer had to add in an irrelevant conclusion (because it has nothing to do with title or introduction), just to satisfy anti-Bush administration conspiracy-theorists.
This is a great example of how the New Yorks Times editors in the hierarchy of the business are radically anti-Bush administration, because I believe that the little added snippet was edited and inserted into the article after the original writer passed in the draft... And a sloppy job at that, in my opinion.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Fox News is Now Officially Boring to Ryan!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201786,00.html
This Fox News article was titled "Big Asteroid to Make Close Pass by Earth". To me, I clicked on it because I thought it would be another crazy armageddon media threat to scare or provoke interest. In this way it did, but as the story begins with its lede, it loses my interest because it almost immediately claims there is no threat to Earth: "...but astronomers say there is no danger of an impact."
And just to put out the last flame of my morbid world-ending interests, it is revealed that the distance of the asteroid is further from the moon, and will be barely visible even with a telescope. Not only that, but it was discovered and analyzed in 2004, and is no surprise to astrologists.
It then ends with a imagined background of a normal star filled sky, but with a little shooting star at around midnight.
But mybe this was the point... to make us feel secure. As a mater of belief, I follow conservative radio and news, and the main stories ou hear end in "everything is okay in your backyard" or "be involved, but stay at home".
What a waste of someone's time! At least the radiclly-liberal New York Times sparks national interest... the best thing anyone else has outside that newspaper today is Anna Nicole Smith's dead carcass and stories full of "NOYB" (None of Your Business).
This Fox News article was titled "Big Asteroid to Make Close Pass by Earth". To me, I clicked on it because I thought it would be another crazy armageddon media threat to scare or provoke interest. In this way it did, but as the story begins with its lede, it loses my interest because it almost immediately claims there is no threat to Earth: "...but astronomers say there is no danger of an impact."
And just to put out the last flame of my morbid world-ending interests, it is revealed that the distance of the asteroid is further from the moon, and will be barely visible even with a telescope. Not only that, but it was discovered and analyzed in 2004, and is no surprise to astrologists.
It then ends with a imagined background of a normal star filled sky, but with a little shooting star at around midnight.
But mybe this was the point... to make us feel secure. As a mater of belief, I follow conservative radio and news, and the main stories ou hear end in "everything is okay in your backyard" or "be involved, but stay at home".
What a waste of someone's time! At least the radiclly-liberal New York Times sparks national interest... the best thing anyone else has outside that newspaper today is Anna Nicole Smith's dead carcass and stories full of "NOYB" (None of Your Business).
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
10-Foot Pile of Hell, but it's not hot up there...
Yes, recorded is 11 foot of total snowfall in the Great Lakes region in the USA. Temperatures have not exctly fallen to record lows this week, but storms have ravaged the northeast with no relent for weeks at a time. 25 deaths were blamed for the last storms earlier this month, and 5 deaths so far recorded for this one.
I'd hate to say it, but this should be a wakeup call to anyone who still thinks it's going to get better up in the northeast. El Nino is blamed for this active winter season, and this cycle normally lasts over 2 consecutive years, although it looks more like La Nina. I know that my relatives have most moved down to Florida because it was almost un-bearable for a middle or low-class family to stay warm and active during the winter season.
(El Nino/La Nina)
And yes, the southeast has taken its own toll of weather catastrophes, such as the recent tornados which killed 20 people. But the tradeoff is that this week some of us in Florida are still wearing shorts and sandals, while at 1000 miles north, schools are closing because the snow makes it impossible for transportation.
THEY DONT CALL THE SOUTH THE SUNBELT FOR NO REASON!
Main Story
I'd hate to say it, but this should be a wakeup call to anyone who still thinks it's going to get better up in the northeast. El Nino is blamed for this active winter season, and this cycle normally lasts over 2 consecutive years, although it looks more like La Nina. I know that my relatives have most moved down to Florida because it was almost un-bearable for a middle or low-class family to stay warm and active during the winter season.
(El Nino/La Nina)
And yes, the southeast has taken its own toll of weather catastrophes, such as the recent tornados which killed 20 people. But the tradeoff is that this week some of us in Florida are still wearing shorts and sandals, while at 1000 miles north, schools are closing because the snow makes it impossible for transportation.
THEY DONT CALL THE SOUTH THE SUNBELT FOR NO REASON!
Main Story
Thursday, February 8, 2007
NOT FOR MMC2100, but if you're interested...
If anyone is remotely interested, check out The American Pub. And no, it has nothing to do with FCCJ, so dont go crazy.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Presidential Candidates Popping Like Wildflowers!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250497,00.html
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Guliani has put in the papers... He's in for 2008!
For anyone else that is sick and tired of Radical Party bases of the Democrats and Republicans, here's an answer.
Small Government, Strong Defense, Pro-Choice, Support for Gay Marriage... He sounds more like a Libertarian than anything?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/5/161823.shtml?s=br
And also Michael Savage, a Nationally-Syndicated Talk-Show Host of The Savage Nation, has talked to Newsmax.com about opening a presidential bid: "I'm only exploring this"
Both have given new hope for a long-drawn Bush Republican Party. So let's examine why they qualify for our valuable Presidential Vote in 2008....
In an interview with Sean Hannidy on Hannidy and Colmes, Hannidy asks many questions concerning the Conservative base. Of course, you know Hannidy just re-hashed everything over and over again, but it made great publication of Gulliani's Value-Base.
Gulliani says that he has qualifying candidacy in his "experiences that I've had as mayor of New York City, United States attorney, all of them very, very, strongly, kind of in the executive area, where you have to have leadership, and organization, and focus"
Also, he mentions his successes of being Mayor of New York City, such as "I lowered taxes in New York. I reduced the size of government in New York. I took a $2.4 billion deficit and turned it into a $3.2 billion surplus."
Clearly a Conservative Base, he answered off-Republican responses to our issues today.
Added to his past recognition in NYC, he also believes every woman has a right to abortion "as long as there's provision for the life of the mother", supports different states' rights to authorize gun-bans, promotes English-language-tested citizenship for any illegal immigrant that are not "drug dealers, and the criminals, and now the terrorists", and fully supports to "put Iraq in the context of a much broader picture than just Iraq."
Michael Savage, on the other hand, is a more Conservative-Based individual, who does not support Liberal views of Guliani like gay-marriage.
He feels he's somewhat qualified for President in 2008 because he is "somebody who's not a politician might be a viable candidate."
He said he will focus his main attention to "Borders, language, Culture."
He believes that America today is fighting a war with "the rules of engagement of a state trooper in the United States."
Among additional views, he believes Global Warming is natural, anti-gay, and his show is known for "psychological nudity".
So there you have it! 2 Sparks within the Republican party, just making news yesterday, for the 2008 Presidential bid.
Personally, Guliani has done amazing works in NYC, and I support his view of granting citizenship to those already here (without drug-smuggling, crime records, and welfare recipients). I also agree that gay marriage is up to the individual, as is abortion. The War on Islamic Terrorism is Number 2 priority as of now, behind number 1 which is restoring Constitutional Govt Standards (like repealing 17th Ammendment). He is my number 2 pick, behind George Phillies (Libertarian)
And as much as I adore and actually look foward to his radio show, Michael Savage is way too Conservative for me. He wants to outlaw Gay Marriage on all non-heterosexual sexualities (I suppoprt individual choice), believes we should just carpet bomb certain areas of Iraq (regaurdless of consequences), and his main topic of Presidential action on "Culture" (working on culture? Too Fascist for my vote...)
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Guliani has put in the papers... He's in for 2008!
For anyone else that is sick and tired of Radical Party bases of the Democrats and Republicans, here's an answer.
Small Government, Strong Defense, Pro-Choice, Support for Gay Marriage... He sounds more like a Libertarian than anything?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/5/161823.shtml?s=br
And also Michael Savage, a Nationally-Syndicated Talk-Show Host of The Savage Nation, has talked to Newsmax.com about opening a presidential bid: "I'm only exploring this"
Both have given new hope for a long-drawn Bush Republican Party. So let's examine why they qualify for our valuable Presidential Vote in 2008....
In an interview with Sean Hannidy on Hannidy and Colmes, Hannidy asks many questions concerning the Conservative base. Of course, you know Hannidy just re-hashed everything over and over again, but it made great publication of Gulliani's Value-Base.
Gulliani says that he has qualifying candidacy in his "experiences that I've had as mayor of New York City, United States attorney, all of them very, very, strongly, kind of in the executive area, where you have to have leadership, and organization, and focus"
Also, he mentions his successes of being Mayor of New York City, such as "I lowered taxes in New York. I reduced the size of government in New York. I took a $2.4 billion deficit and turned it into a $3.2 billion surplus."
Clearly a Conservative Base, he answered off-Republican responses to our issues today.
Added to his past recognition in NYC, he also believes every woman has a right to abortion "as long as there's provision for the life of the mother", supports different states' rights to authorize gun-bans, promotes English-language-tested citizenship for any illegal immigrant that are not "drug dealers, and the criminals, and now the terrorists", and fully supports to "put Iraq in the context of a much broader picture than just Iraq."
Michael Savage, on the other hand, is a more Conservative-Based individual, who does not support Liberal views of Guliani like gay-marriage.
He feels he's somewhat qualified for President in 2008 because he is "somebody who's not a politician might be a viable candidate."
He said he will focus his main attention to "Borders, language, Culture."
He believes that America today is fighting a war with "the rules of engagement of a state trooper in the United States."
Among additional views, he believes Global Warming is natural, anti-gay, and his show is known for "psychological nudity".
So there you have it! 2 Sparks within the Republican party, just making news yesterday, for the 2008 Presidential bid.
Personally, Guliani has done amazing works in NYC, and I support his view of granting citizenship to those already here (without drug-smuggling, crime records, and welfare recipients). I also agree that gay marriage is up to the individual, as is abortion. The War on Islamic Terrorism is Number 2 priority as of now, behind number 1 which is restoring Constitutional Govt Standards (like repealing 17th Ammendment). He is my number 2 pick, behind George Phillies (Libertarian)
And as much as I adore and actually look foward to his radio show, Michael Savage is way too Conservative for me. He wants to outlaw Gay Marriage on all non-heterosexual sexualities (I suppoprt individual choice), believes we should just carpet bomb certain areas of Iraq (regaurdless of consequences), and his main topic of Presidential action on "Culture" (working on culture? Too Fascist for my vote...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
