Alright Candidates, Listen Up!!!!

I would like to send a message to local, regional, state-wide and national candidates running in the current elections: I am voting for the candidate who has not made it their mission to rip apart their opponent through nasty print, radio or television ad campaigns.

Seriously, enough is enough!

The ads darting around this election season are nauseating. There is never a logical reason presented to back any candidate. We are only combated with reasons to vote opposite the opposing rival. To say it mildly, most of the details in those ads tend to be exaggerating the truth somewhat, but seemingly that is okay.

Since when are candidates apprehensive to scream what they believe in and why can’t they allow the voters to determine if those are beliefs worth backing? Why is the "conventional wisdom" that the single method to acquire votes is to toss more mud at your adversary than they toss at you?

Because of the manner in which candidates campaign nowadays, it is much harder, if not implausible to establish beneficial reasons to vote FOR somebody. Because of the manner in which they campaign, one cannot help but sense that they are voting for the lesser of the evils scrambling for each position.

Here’s the commercial scene lately… “The television screen fades up from black. The picture of the candidate opposing the commercial's sponsor slowly materializes as a timeline starts to crawl across her face from left to right and a sinister voice says: "Tweedle Dee. Her history of corruption started in kindergarten when she stole stickers from Peppermint Patty. Next came middle school and a trip to the principal's office for her part in bleaching Betty Boop’s gym shorts. Onto high school where she served in-school suspension for engaging in 'Senior Skip Day' and finally, the most shocking of all: a 'D' in college bowling. Is that really who you want representing you, America? Tweedle Dee, wrong for all the right reasons. This ad paid for by Tweedle Dum."

I am not here to advocate on behalf of a certain candidate or party. It is up to every voter to become as informed as possible and confidently select the candidate or issues we feel are right, just and the best option. Communities are only as strong as their leaders, workforce and school systems and it is important to have elected officials who will advocate for the less fortunate and the underprivileged and to instill and enact standards of safety, security, morality, humanity and societal betterment overall. If people running for an office have made it their lot in life to build themselves up by shamelessly and underhandedly ripping someone else down, how much integrity do they really have and how would that effect the people for which you are campaigning to govern?

Alright candidates, listen up, this is the 21st century and many of us out here actually have working brains. How about telling us, in those precious 30 seconds, what you stand for why you think you should be elected or re-elected? Why should we vote for you? What is the greatest thing about you? How can you drive the economy and generate jobs? What new concepts do you have to offer and how would you plan to serve with the contending party for the benefit of our people? If you are an incumbent, what have you accomplished throughout your tenure? How did you contribute to advance us forward? What was your justification for the way you voted on various legislation? Can't do this in a short television ad? Maybe not, but it would be an excellent attempt to try to say something that had any type of meaning.

Here’s the truth, many voters, like myself, are thankful for TiVo and DVRs, because as you spend all that money showing tired ads over and over again it is being fast forwarded through, every time. Try generating reasons of why you SHOULD get my vote.

My name is Anita Wyndham and I approved this message!

Columbus, A Man of His Time

On October 12th, every year, distinct intellectuals as well as pundits surface to ridicule the remembrance of Christopher Columbus, the Genoese helmsman and explorer. There were indeed numerous instances for which Christoffa Corombo, as he was recognized as in his home-town of Genoa, could be disparaged for. He never reached China. He acrimoniously miscalculated the configuration of the Earth, and other fiascoes can be included.

Obviously, these are not the aberrations for which what the contemporary pundits admonish Columbus. Columbus had been indeed an imperialist as well he facilitated genocide. He could have easily been labeled as a tyrant! Or ergo, they argue. Matthew Yglesias, renowned editor and writer who also holds a BA in Philosophy from Harvard University, seems to not care one way or the other, but states in his blog, Reconsidering Columbus Day (Or Not) found at http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/reconsidering-columbus-day-or-not/ that “unlike in some countries he’s visited recently, it’s perfectly possible to probe an American about his political views without being treated to a lengthy ax-grinding historical narrative.”

Matthew’s stance is indeed concrete, he respects Columbus’ bravery however does not dismiss his immoralities nor the immoralities of his era. Columbus’ bravery nor his downfalls do anything whatsoever to rationalize Vietnam or Hiroshima or any other infractions or offenses of our time.

What is crazy and candidly preposterous is that numerous journalists, similar to the ones who constructed the Reconsider Columbus Day clip, elect to disregard tabulated context. Columbus existed not as a man of our era so to adjudicate him by today's prototypes is outrageous.

What Columbus had been, was a man of his period. His perspective had not been explicitly dissimilar from that of many 15th century helmsmen, businessmen and commanders. Enslavement was an antiquated conventionality, consented by the Bible. Of course, Columbus would see the Native Americans as possible slaves. In addition, Columbus had been an imperialist. He had been aided by Spain. What else could he be? Columbus’ treatment of the Native Americans had not been substantially worse than the treatment of Europeans by fellow Europeans of that era. Columbus navigated the waters in 1492. The Spanish Inquisition, which began its existence in 1478, was heightened following the royal legislates also established in 1492. Abundant scribes chastise Columbus’ murdering of Native Americans in Santo Domingo while overlooking the auto de fes at Seville. A past without context is candidly eccentricity.

Columbus existed as what he was, a navigator and helmsman of the 15th century. We should accept from history the lessons of courageousness as well as corrosiveness. To idolize the former is not to affirm the latter.

Just the FOX, man... Just the facts!

Sheldon Alberts makes his argument, in his recently written article “Obama’s World – Glenn Beck, bad. Keith Olbermann, good,” found on http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/29/sheldon-alberts-obamas-world-glenn-beck-bad-keith-olbermann-good/, that “Obama only deemed FOX News as “destructive” when the opinions being expressed ran counter to his own.” Alberts article seems to be directed towards a more right-winged audience. If Alberts wants to draw a more diverse audience as well show some validity to his argument he needs to provide his readers with more factual evidence that shows on one hand how President Obama may be unfavorable of the way FOX News, who has been known to express a more Republican point of view, is exercising their First Amendment rights and on the other hand provides proof that other news outlets express a more Liberal or Democratic point of view. Providing more factual evidence might sway Alberts’ readers towards his argument that Obama had a “disapproving tone” against FOX News when he gave his interview to Rolling Stone Magazine.

It is no secret that Alberts himself expresses a more right-wing point of view. With recent articles written in The National Post such as, “Obama needs rescue from ‘Recovery Summer” and “Carville shows he can annoy Democrat presidents too,” Alberts makes it clear his political ideologies and how he feels about President Obama.

Alberts basic argument is that President Obama made his comment about Fox News only because of his disapproval of the news outlet’s history of reporting views that are biased to the Republican Party. Fox News is very blunt about their stance and has often made direct insults about nearly all the decisions and laws passed under the leadership of President Obama.

President Obama also stated in his Rolling Stone interview, "You had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition – it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. A point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world.” I could not agree with President Obama more. In fact, Alberts article, along with the views expressed on Fox News, are proof of that “destruction” that continuously fuels the divide amongst a people who claim to desire “unity.”

Since when did journalism and reporting the news become so opinionated? Has everything in America become so either or that we are now partitioned to select particular news broadcasts based on its political views? It’s the news and Alberts job, as well as the journalist and reporters on Fox news have an obligation to report just that, the news. Their jobs are not to taint or sway citizens of this country to feel or think a certain way, that is why we have campaigning. This is a crucial time in our country where our economy is in a recession, we are dealing with an unwarranted war in Afghanistan, nuclear weapons have been found in Iran, Russia and China are becoming the new economic powers and Alberts, Fox News and their cohorts find it more important to tear down a president who inherited a mess and is doing his best to clean it up. When a media outlet goes beyond reporting the news to trying to convince its viewers to feel and think a particular way, then yes, it is indeed destructive to a nation that is already divided.