MEDIA BIAS

I believe the media is definitely biased. The audience gets to see and hear what both the
government and the elite want us to listen and watch. The media playing the role
of "Gate Keeper's" of the system. Traditionally conservatives and republicans have own
the broadcasting, radio, and newspapers, and have used them as a way to convey their
message and to control the population. Fifty years of fear against communism, came in
the form of "The U.S. protecting the free world. Now the same fear is spread against the
new enemy "The Terrorists" and the way they are trying to change or to finish freedom
as we know it. So every day, at primetime, preferably, we are bombarded against the
enemy. As for the media leanning towards the left, it's hard, because it takes money to
put up a show, and few people will risk their profit, and even their licenses to open up
their mics and screens to allow other views. Now and then we see efforts that come and
go from some committed people trying to make a difference. Nowadays Air Radio
America and on t.v. Bill Maher. However, as audience you need at least to be able to
afford cable t.v. to access to that show (Maher). Some companies won't advertise if they
considered the program might hurt their image more than anything, and more than once
had pulled out of 'open-minded' or 'subversive' films, programs, etc.
Yes, the media is biased and the only color that recognizes usually is green.

POLITICAL AFFILIATION

I do not belong to any political party, I guess that goes back to my mother's influence. She is an artist (a composer and singer) and she always refused to join the union for either musicians or composers, arguing that all they wanted was her money. She was sure they wouldn't defend her rights if the moment arose. Then when I worked for the government, I was obligated to join the union, and all I saw was the union leaders pocketing money, entering office without a penny and leaving office (if they ever left) with houses, cars, fat bank accounts, etc. while the little people remained little. Then on election times our bosses would try to force us (the employees) to affiliate to a certain political party, whether we liked it or not. So, I grew wary of political institutions.

However, I do identify with the democrats and their stand on social issues such as: the organization of labor unions, in helping and creating programs to better the living conditions of the poor, their interest in minority rights, whether racial, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Would I ever join a political party, I don't think so. I like my freedom.

FAMILY TIES

Isn't it nice to realize how the wealthy and priviliged Americans know each other?

Or as some would say "It's a small world."

Since we are going to be listening so much about Nancy Pelosi, I found interesting an article posted online from times magazine, which, I'm quoting extensively in case any of you, my classmates, missed it:

"My Mother, My President
(Posted Sunday, Nov. 12, 2006) Alexandra Pelosi is uniquely positioned to judge how the President and the future Democratic House Speaker will get along. At 36, she is the youngest of Nancy Pelosi's five children, and her famous HBO documentary, Journeys with George, was a backstage "video diary" of George W. Bush's 2000 campaign. She was the first to introduce the two. Her inside take on their relationship:
Back on the campaign plane when George W. Bush was a Governor running for President in 2000, he used to pass me notes to read to the Congresswoman from San Francisco. When a newspaper article touted her prowess at raising funds, he tore it out and wrote on it, "Ask her: Can I have some?" Or when a magazine ran its guesses for his vice-presidential short list, he wrote in "Pelosi," along with, "Can you get her to run with me?"
When my parents came to have lunch with me at an Oakland airport hotel where Bush was giving a speech in March 2000, he did what he did when any member of the traveling press corps was in his or her hometown: he summoned us to his room so he could meet the parents. As he talked about the rigors of life on the trail, my mother politely explained how she was working her heart out to help Al Gore win the state of California.
The next time I saw them together, George was in the White House, and he told me, "You ought to be proud of your mom." At the time she was fighting her heart out on the House floor against the Iraq war. On any occasion that I have seen them together in private, they have appeared to be the best of "frenemies"--campaign-trail speak for politicians who keep their friends close and their enemies closer.
They actually have a lot in common. His father was President, and her father served in Congress and then as mayor of Baltimore. They both came to politics later in life, and they both mean it when they say that elections are not everything; if they lose, life will go on. Bush has the ranch, and my mother has her grandkids. And, of course, some people have made the mistake of underestimating both of them.
During the 2000 campaign, George used to respond to the jabs from late-night comedians by saying, "Let them laugh at me. I am going to be their President." On the trail in 2006, as the doubters were calling the Democrats a permanent minority, my mother repeated her mantra: We have better candidates. When anyone used the tired phrase, "Where are the Democrats?", she explained that everything was going exactly as planned; she was like a submarine on a stealth mission to take back the House.
On the day the President first criticized her at a fund raiser, she knew that he had given her a gift. When the President of the United States mocks you, it puts you on the map. And when he mocks you publicly, the money rolls in. Sure, they have their ideological differences. By now you have heard everything they have said about each other. But plenty of presidential candidates have said worse things about their opponents before they have chosen them as their running mate or their designated successor (witness John McCain).
While reporters like to stir the pot and focus on the catfights, they don't seem to grasp that these are two seasoned professionals working at the highest level of American government with skin so much thicker than the rest of us. As Bush noted in his press conference on the day after the election, "This isn't my first rodeo." Or as my mother has always told me, "This business comes with a free head clipping. Every time you stick your neck out, they come around and cut it off."
George W. Bush and Nancy Pelosi both know that if you want to breathe the rarefied air at the highest echelons of the U.S. government, you have to ignore the media buzzards. When I was watching Fox News recently, and she walked into the room, I had to explain that Sean Hannity was spending the month leading up to the election warning America that Speaker Pelosi would destroy this nation. She asked, "Which one is Hannity?"
So as all of us spectators sit home on our couches watching the bloviators pontificate about the state of American politics, rest assured that George Bush and Nancy Pelosi are so busy that they do not hear a word of it. And if they did, they couldn't care less. They have a country to run."

The Trends, For The Better or Worse That This Midterm Election Reveals:

This past tuesday elections have shown that America was fed up (not k-fed, well that too) with extremist measures. Topics such as banning abortion, going against gays rights, and even the -before supported, war in Iraq, have no place in the new american way. In all three read, listen, & watch assignments, lay-people, media people and politicians all agreed that we need to turn toward the center, neither too much to the left, nor to the right. Politicians should be accountable when they fail to deliver, and the ultimate punishment is to get them out of office.

For me, however, the most interesting outcome in this midterm elections, the groundbreaking episode so to speak, is that America fi-na-lly will be ready to welcome the debut of a woman as the speaker of the house.

We can but agree that THE PLACE OF A WOMAN IS IN THE (white/ representatives) HOUSE Right?

As good Bob Dylan once said : "The times they are a-changin'.

HOW FAMILY, SCHOOL, PEERS, ETC AFFECTED MY POLITICAL VIEWS

I always like reading, I remember I was 8-years-old when I began reading the newspaper steadily. We have it delivered at home, so I will run and pick it up and always read the entertainment section, and then whatever headline got my attention. No matter how much I read, it planted a seed that has not die until now. Every day I have to read the paper no matter what.

I remember the first election I went with my mother, I knew one of the guys that was running for president was a Capricorn (and so am I), I was only six-years-old, so please forgive me.

It's funny, because looking back we (my family) always went out to vote, even though we knew it was a fraud (did I forget to mention that I grew up in Mexico, were for 70 years the ruling party PRI always won?) There were actually, at least 3 political parties as far back as the 1930s: The PRI (thieves), The PAN (Right Wing), and the communist party that changed names through the years and now is the PRD. Anyways, election through election we would hear that people in small villages got killed if they didn't vote for the PRI, in bigger cities however it was more about the government promising something good for the citizens, on election day giving away food, construction material, or whatever cheap that could attract people to sympatize for them. It wasn't until the year 2000 when the PRI couldn't openly sustain their fraudulent practices that decided to share the power with the right wingers. We just have election in Mexico last July and it was a big fraud -again, openly backed by international forces toowary of the new leftist wave that's catching latinamerica again.

As for my peers, I saw some of the hardcore leftists of the 80s recently, and to my surprise, they've become CHRISTIANS !!!

So, that prettty much summarizes my experiences through the political world.

MS. SANDRA DAY

FROM AN INSIDER:
SAN FRANCISCO - Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said she fears judges are under growing political attack nationwide.

"I'm increasingly concerned about the current climate of challenge to judicial independence," O'Connor told a gathering of state judges from around the country Friday. "Unhappiness with judges today is at a very intense level."
The judiciary is the weakest of the three branches of government, she said, and therefore the one with "the greatest need to be defended."
The executive and legislative branches have become the attackers, so "the principal defenders are going to have to be the people of this country," with lawyers taking the lead, she said.
O'Connor, who retired in January after 24 years on the nation's highest court, spoke day before voters in South Dakota will consider the "Jail 4 Judges" initiative. It would create a citizens' grand jury that could authorize lawsuits or criminal prosecutions against judges based on their rulings.
Colorado voters will decide whether to limit judges on the state's highest courts to 10 years in office, a measure that would remove five of the state's seven Supreme Court justices within two years.

Sorry I extensively quoted this article. I was ready to go to bed when I found it on yahoonews, at 11:40 pm. :)

ON BLACK ROBES

If you hope to become a federal judge, stand in line now. All our judges (but one) were born in the 30’s so you have plenty of time to wait, study, become literate, enroll in one of the most prestigious universities (if you have the money and the connections, of course),look around, travel, get to know and understand people and their reasons to behave the way they do. By then come back but make sure you’ve made the right connections to the left or to the right, because the job of a judge is not easy and it seems is, almost, a life time commitment. Federal judges are appointed by the president and are generally selected from among themore prominent or politically active members of the legal profession (connections. Many federal judges previously served as state court judges or state or local prosecutors. before the president makes a formal nomination, the senators from the candidate's own state must indicate that they support the nominee. This practice is called senatorial courtesy. Political factors play an important role in the selection of Judges. Since the high court has so much influence over American law and politics, virtually all presidents have made an effort to select justices who share their won political philosophies. So, again, if you think you'll make a good jugde, begin the connection process right now :)

ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK !

CHALLENGES TO ROW V. WADE:
Among the most significant modern illustrations of the use of the courts as strategy for political influence are those that accompanied the ‘sexual revolution’ of the 1960s and the emergence of the movement of women’s rights. A series of cases were brought into the federal courts in an effort to force definition of a right to privacy in sexual matters. The effort began with a challenge to state restrictions on obtaining contraceptives for non-medical purposes, a challenge that was effectively made in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court held that states could neither prohibit the dissemination of information about nor prohibit the actual use of contraceptives by married couples. That case was soon followed by Eisenstadt v. Bair, in which the Court held that the states could not prohibit the use of contraceptive in single persons any more than it could prohibit their use by married couples. One year later, the Court held, in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, that states could not impose an absolute ban on voluntary abortions. Each of these cases as well as others, were part of the Court’s enunciation of a constitutional doctrine of privacy.
Not everything was “honey over flakes,” conservative groups as far back as 1973 made extensive use of the courts to undermine the scope of the privacy doctrine. They obtained rulings that prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for voluntary abortions. In 1989, right-to-life groups were able to use a strategy of litigation that significantly undermined the Roe v. Wade decision, in the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which restored the right of states to place restrictions on abortion.

The president’s most direct influence on the court is the power to nominate justices. Presidents typically nominate judges who they believe are close to their policy preferences and close enough to the preferences of a majority of senators, who must confirm the nomination. Justice O’Connor disappointed conservatives by opposing limitations on abortion.
President George W. Bush was presented with an opportunity to fill two Supreme Court vacancies, one by the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and the other by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Immediately, liberal and conservative advocacy groups mobilized for battle. In particular, pro-choice and pro-life groups saw the two Supreme Court appointments as a decisive point in the long-standing national struggle over abortion. Pro-choice groups feared that Bush would appoint justices hostile to abortion rights while pro-life groups feared that he would not. President Bush had to withdraw the name of one nominee, Harriet Miers, and almost lost the candidacy a second nominee, Samuel Alito.
One of the most widespread efforts to restrict abortions without violation Roe is state requirements that underage females must seek parental consent or show parental notification or, failing that, the notification of a local judge in order to receive an abortion.California will decide in such matter this coming tuesday!
It seems that with the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist and the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the future of Row and of abortion rights may have changed drastically.

ARE WE READY TO ENTER THE VOTING ELECTRONIC ERA? A LOOK AT THE NOVEMBER 7 ELECTIONS

Can electronic voting machines be set for fraud?

Even though there's no proven evidence of electronic fraud, in a recent poll 2/3 of the population believed hackers could tamper electronic machines, or the machines themselves could deliver some type of mistakes.

The poll showed voters still favor the old fashion paper ballots, or at least having paper verification of their votes.

Fear has raised due to problems that had tainted some electoral results:

Paper 'backup' ballots jammed in the machines (Ohio)

Human error when workers forgot to bring the access cards that activated the machines, forcing voters to wait for hours (Maryland)

Law suit aimed to de-certify an election due to electronic problems (Colorado)

And who could forget Florida in the 2000 Presidential election?

In this era of terrorism, there is always room for a potential hacking, or intentional fraud through manipulation.

The concern is so big that Princeton University conducted several tests with electronic voting machines to prove their potentiality for fraud. Their findings showed that machines are suceptible to viruses that spread from machine to machine and could change the results. Then, without paper proof of voters' choices, there is no way to verify if the votes were really casted the way citizens intended.

Diebold Election Systems (one of the voting machines providers) denied the allegations, arguing that electronic voting machines are never connected to the internet or to each other. Besides, people from both parties are always looking over each other, making it unlikely for somebody to commit fraud. Human error (according to Diebold) was more likely to happen in the old fashion way (putting at risk the results) considering that the same people had to arrive at 5 AM to open the precincts and had to stay there until midnight to count the votes.

For Diebold, such human errors belong now to the past with the improved technology.

In the mean time, the average American, may have to comform with the results and hope for the best. In times when technology seems to have come too soon for quite a few millions still longing for the good, old fashion times, when we only needed a pen, and knew how to cross an X over our favorite candidates.