Tuesday, March 17, 2015

The Partisanship of the Press....

Good evening everyone...

My father-in-law and I have an ongoing argument.  He reads CNN on line.  I go to Fox.  He is probably right.

So if he is probably right, why do I not go to CNN, or perhaps to MSNBC for the news?  The reason is that I used to do that.  I found though that the anti-Israel bias was too much for me to accept.  Fox is far more biased towards Israel.  Jennifer and I used to receive the Toronto Star.  We now receive the National Post.  The reason is the same - bias.

There is a greater question though.  What happened to just getting a straight reporting of facts from the news?  What happened to an editorial page that was more or less balanced?  It is a problem.  In the US, the news organizations on the left in the US believe that the President can do no wrong.  Those on the right - if the President donated a kidney to save a life, they would paint him as conniving for political reasons.  It makes it very difficult to figure out what is the reality on the ground.

The reason that this comes to mind now has to do with Hillary Clinton.  As you are all likely aware, she conducted State Department business on her private e-mail account.  We will ignore the fact that any correspondence from a member of the government in the performance of his/her job is a matter of public record.  That means that if the Secretary of State replies to an e-mail with 'LOL,' that response is a Freedom of Information Act concern.  To delete those e-mails is problematic.  To use a server that would require a subpoena for the information is also problematic.

I care, but people on the higher echelons of government can figure this out.

I have two e-mail accounts that are subject to the regulations concerning federal records.  Once upon a time, I used to communicate informally with the Navy via my personal e-mail account.  Then the Navy decided that that was no longer allowed.  Then the Navy decided to start enforcing the change.  One of my commanding officers sent me a nasty-gram about it after I persisted in using my personal e-mail account.

So my question is: why do I get in trouble for this and Hillary Clinton thus far does not?  The president's cabinet is on a far higher level than I am.  To enforce these regulations on some but not on others is lousy leadership.  Selective enforcement leads to selective obedience.

I started this blog entry with concern about bias in the press.  Would someone whose politics lie somewhere to left of the spectrum please offer me an answer?  I am certain that I am missing something.

Have a good evening.


Monday, March 16, 2015

An Apology....Really?

Top of the evening everyone.

As many of you are aware, the Secretary of State is presently in Zurich trying to hammer out an agreement with Iran on Iran's nuclear program (more on that in a minute).  Many of you are also aware that a large number of US senators signed and sent a letter to the Iranians about those negotiations.  The President called the letter destructive.  The Iranians brought up the letter in the discussions with Secretary Kerry.

Secretary Kerry was asked if he intended to apologize for that letter.  Appropriately, he said he would not.  His reason was that he did not feel the need to apologize for a letter initiated by someone who had been a senator for less than 60 days.

Right answer...wrong reason. 

Right answer...right reason?  We will not apologize.  We may give it some thought, or not.  While we are giving it some thought, or not, perhaps the Iranian government might think about apologizing to the US for invading our sovereign territory in 1979.  Perhaps it might apologize to the US for holding its citizens hostage for 444 days.  Perhaps it might consider apologizing for planning to assassinate a member of the Saudi royal family on US territory just a couple of years ago.  It is a long list.

As concerns US-Iranian negotiations, 1986 comes to mind.  In the fall of that year, President Reagan went to Iceland for a summit with Mikhael Gorbachev.  For a long time, that was called a failed summit.  History appears now to be showing that the Reykjavik summit was crucial to the demise of the Soviet Union.

At that summit, President Reagan brought to the table a point of concern about the USSR.  It was one of human rights.  It had never been mentioned.  This concern of human rights might be an issue right now, given that Iran's record in this area is dismal at best.  "Where is my vote(?)" was the mantra of the so-called Green Revolution in 2009.

Upon his return to the US, President Reagan addressed the country from the Oval Office.  He made the following statement: "for a government that will break faith with its own people can not be trusted to keep faith with foreign powers."

Why are even considering trusting these people?

Have a good evening.