Media Bias in the Coverage of “Occupy” Protests? That is a Shock

"Where's the outrage?" the Republican National Committee asked this week regarding the support of President Barack Obama, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Steve Israel for the Occupy Wall Street protests despite well-documented anti-Semitic and anti-Israel comments and signs.

It's a fair question; one that should not have to be asked by the RNC, but instead members of the media interviewing Democrats.

Let's go back to the last election cycle. While much of the media scoffed, insulted, or dismissed Tea Party activists, they also held Republicans' feet to the fire, gleefully grilling Republican elected officials, candidates, and strategists any time some jerk at a Tea Party rally had a sign questioning either the president's birth certificate or Christianity.

I recall well how the conversation would play out. After showing b-roll of a misguided individual holding up such a sign, or airing a similarly wrong comment, the interviewer would ask, "Isn't this representative of something larger within the Republican Party…why aren't Republicans condemning this more forcefully?" while the Republican interviewee would condemn both the comments and the attitude behind it.

Democrats praising the Occupy Wall Street protests have thus far been spared similarly uncomfortable questions. Indeed, media coverage of the protests has been long on publicity, but short on scrutiny. Scrutiny of those participating in the protests and those cheering them on has been practically nonexistent.

This is not to suggest the protests are anti-Semitic in nature. Tea Party rallies, after all, were about seeking to curb federal spending and stop Obamacare, not birth certificates. But as the Occupy Wall Street protests grow and their message continues to, er, evolve—are these the World Trade Organization protests redux, fighting "The Man" as in 1970s action films, or something more that remains to be seen—top Democrats, desperate to find any foothold with voters, are clinging to the protests.

So desperate, in fact, they have thus far been willing to turn a blind eye to anti-Semitic elements within the protests.

Perhaps it's naïve to think Democrats would condemn such behavior on their own without prompting, but it is entirely reasonable to expect the media to do its job with the same diligence (zeal, even) we saw over the Tea Party not so long ago.

Six of One, Half Dozen of the Other

I don’t’ know who I would like to be the GOP nominee in 2012.  I am not sure who I will vote for in the Illinois primary.  By the time Illinois has its primary the race may be all but over.  I do know that the GOP establishment is pushing real hard to make Mitt Romney the nominee.

However, I can say that I will NOT be voting for Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney is too much like Barack Obama. I am not sure wheather or not he will win the 2012 GOP nod. But, in my opinion, he's got too much in common with the guy he wants to replace.

Both men began a run for the White House during their first term in statewide office. Romney never bothered to run for re-election as Massachusetts governor. He didn't stick around to solve the state's problems. He treated the job like a stepping-stone.

Likewise, Obama ran for the White House in his first term as a U.S. senator.

Each could win a gold medal in flip-flopping.

Short list: In 2008, Obama pledged to shut down Guantanamo Bay, vowed to raise taxes on the rich, opposed raising the federal debt ceiling in 2006 and hit President George W. Bush for unilaterally authorizing "a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

In office, Obama has kept Gitmo open, signed a measure to extend the Bush tax cuts for all income levels, proposed raising the debt ceiling and authorized the use of military force over Libya without congressional approval.

Romney has made a similar journey. When he ran to be governor of liberal Massachusetts in 2002, Romney pledged to "protect a woman's right to choose" and won the unanimous endorsement of the gay GOP group, the Log Cabin Republicans.

With his eyes on the 2008 GOP nomination, Romney's views on abortion began to move closer to the GOP's right. Romney now defines himself as "firmly pro-life." The Log Cabin Republicans whom he had once courted were so angry at what they saw as Romney's defection on social issues that they produced a TV spot highlighting Romney's erstwhile "Massachusetts values."

Both pushed through big health care packages -- and now are left with the baggage.

Romney was for an individual mandate for his Massachusetts health care plan before he was against the mandate in Obama's health care plan -- because it's national.

Obama was against the individual mandate -- in the primary, he hammered Hillary Rodham Clinton for daring to suggest such a thing -- before his administration proclaimed the individual mandate to be the linchpin to Obamacare.

To keep Obamacare intact, the administration has granted more than 1,000 waivers to large employers -- like the state of Maine. Romney favors waivers for all states, then he favors repeal. He now refers to Romneycare as "an experiment" -- a word that politicians usually reserve to explain their drug use in college.

Each has a religious m-word. Romney is a Mormon. Obama is not a Muslim.

Both men seem to share an aversion to anything with a whiff of political unpopularity. Obama let Congress write his health care bill, and he's been reluctant to act on deficit reduction.

For his part, Romney enjoys hitting Obamacare -- which plays to the GOP base. But then, when it comes to Romneycare, the former governor blames Bay State Democrats for undermining it. Whose fault is that?

They both look presidential and both are a political consultant's dream. But if you don't see them sweat, it's because you don't see them doing the heavy lifting.

Tough Sanctions on Iran Now!

In light of what we learned this week about Iran’s backing of plots to assassinate a foreign ambassador on American soil and a plot to plant a bomb in Washington, we can no longer ignore the threat that Iran poses to peace. However, the question we must ask is the same question we have asked every year for decades. How do we deal with the ticking time bomb of Iran?

The Obama administration must press with all its diplomatic might, and with sober pragmatism, for the kind of stinging economic sanctions that are the best hope to prevent a calamitous chain reaction. And the Administration must deal with several dangers.

The first danger is in Israel, whose leaders have understandably described Iran's nuclear pursuit, along with its ominous rhetoric, as an "existential" threat. Israeli leaders have made it clear that they will not wait forever to take preemptive military action of the sort Israel used successfully when it bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.

The second danger is the potential reaction of many other Middle Eastern nations. Countries like Saudi Arabia, with its majority Arab, Sunni population, could set off an arms race by seeking to develop nuclear programs of their own, in the face of the threat from Iran's Persian, Shiite majority.

Yet another potential explosion, this one more hopeful than fearsome, could shake Iran itself -- the so-called "Green Revolution," a popular push back against the repressive government of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The fuse on this volatile material was lit in response to what was widely perceived as a stolen election that kept Ahmadinejad in power.

Sitting down across the table from Iran is basically off the table. The same must be said, in my view, about military action, at least for now, although the possible use of force must never be fully disavowed.

The clear necessity is for the world community to impose prompt and painful sanctions targeting the Revolutionary Guard and the government, while sparing the general population as much as possible. Clinton, leading this effort, seems to have key allies behind her. But as usual the Russians and Chinese, who have veto power as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, are maddeningly resistant.

Some headway has been made with Russia, which has offered to reprocess Iran's spent nuclear fuel so the nuclear program can actually be what Iran claims it to be: an energy program. But Russia's cooperation has come at a cost. Obama scrapped the planned deployment of a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. And because of Iran, Russia will also have more leverage in talks about strategic nuclear weapons and the proposed enlargement of NATO, which Russia considers its own existential threat.

Even more uncomfortable compromises may be needed to win responsible Chinese behavior on Iran. Recent flare-ups over such sore points as Tibet, Taiwan and China's currency may make this more difficult,.

Critics may decry what has to be surrendered to win international unity behind more meaningful sanctions. But time is not on the side of stability and peace.

What Is A Man?

I know that my blogs always tend to focus on the politics of the day.  But, I thought I would take a little time to write about something non-political that has been on my mind lately.  Due to some recent changes in my life, I have been contemplating a question for which I feel it is important to have an answer.  The question I find myself asking is,  “What do you think it means to be a man?” versus one of the countless “guys” I see roaming our country.   The following is what I have decided (at least for me) what it really means to be a man in the 21st century.

Growing up I always thought being a man meant you needed to be rough and tough like John Wayne “The Duke” or the famous animated character “He-man” who was a strong and muscular representation of the “ideal” man.
Being an man (not just a guy) in the 21st century requires guts.  It demands courage, strength, and faith.  Today’s generation of men face a new way of expressing manliness in the world. A way where compassion, service, and love is the leading-edge of being in the world. Whereas 20-30 years ago  men were conditioned to not show their emotions and encouraged to be “the man of the house”. Where as today, times are changing and being a powerful and confident man looks and acts shockingly different in today’s society. To all my friends who are men (not just guys),  this post is for you.

What it means to be a man:
Integrity: Having integrity means you honor your word and your commitments. How many times did someone give you their business card or they email you and you “forget” to call them or email them back?  Being an man means your word is more valuable than anything else.  People can trust in you because of your commitment and your consistency in being there when you say you will or calling them when you say you will.  Integrity is not an act in life,  it is a way of life.  The world needs more men who are willing to stand by their word and honor their commitments.

Being of Service: In today’s world we often see people impoverished mentally, physically, and spiritually.  Being and man means you are willing to put others before yourself and look for ways, on a daily basis, in which you can be of service to others.  What separates an man from someone who is just a guy is the fact that they are self-motivated to create happiness and joy in the lives of others and not self-centered only in thinking about how they will grow and succeed.  In today’s world we are learning that it’s not only possible, but necessary for men  to be successful in their personal goals and career well as the goals of others around him.  It’s time to lay down the “I need to get mine” mentality and look for ways to share our time and talents for the happiness and comfort of those around us.

Emotional: In order to be an man it means you are willing to show your true feelings with others.  In doing this you are creating a new level of honesty, authenticity, and power for the next generation of men (like my 12 year old son and my nephews).  In the John Wayne era we were taught to bite our feelings, stuff them down, and get over it.  Those days are over.  Holding our emotions in only creates resistance and a lack of flow in our creativity, abundance, and drive for life. This way of the ego has met its last day for those ready to embark on a powerful journey of being a real man. It’s time for men to be willing to show their sensitivity, passion, and true feelings in front of others.  There is tremendous power in revealing your true emotions.  Doors are opened to create a greater connection and a feeling of true community within humanity.
Visionary: Being an man means you are  fearless to dream and go after your dreams and not let the world around you constrain your imagination and genius. The world is only growing smaller and a man carries a vision that is so unique and inspiring that he is willing to face the criticism and doubt of others and keep moving forward in his belief in its being a reality.

Faith: Let go of the idea that you are in control of everything that happens in your life and trust in something greater than yourself to be a guiding compass in this world.  A man continues to use his mind and intellect to believe and keep moving forward, yet realizing that there is a power greater than he moving through him bringing his vision and the world together through him in a powerful way.  A man is consistent with his daily spiritual practice. He does not let anything remove him from his daily spiritual practice which keeps his heart open and the possibility of being a conduit for powerful change to occur through him.  He continues to seek growth and recognizes his need for improvement without carrying guilt about it. A man understands that he is merely passing through this world.

Sense of Humor: One of the biggest differences in what it means to be a man today verses being just another guy is having a lightness about you and being able to laugh and make others laugh around you.  Through laughter a man shows his confidence in life and his ability to trust and go with the flow.  When you find yourself heavy and serious you have lost touch with your true self.  Create a way each day to laugh and make others laugh which expands a lightness for those around you.

It’s a big role to be a man today.  We need more men that are willing to step up and not worry about what others think of them and confidently spark a new era of what it means to be a man.  I am incredibly grateful to the person who gave me the inspiration to think of this and give me the food for thought to continue to grow into a man (you know who you are). I may not be completely there yet.  But, I will try to grow a little more every day.  This may only be the  foundation of being a man. There are many more ways to add onto what it means to be a man today.

I send my blessings to all my friends who are men.