Romney Averts Disaster! That was the headline on the front page of the Los Angeles Times last week. Oh my god, I thought, what did he do? Prevent a deadly auto accident? Did he show up at an air controller's station and prevent two planes from crashing and burning, thus saving hundreds of innocent people? Even more amazing did he don his superhero cape and halt a tornado in it's path sparing millions the horror of becoming homeless?
No, of course not. He merely won some primary election in some little state. That was some disaster. I guess if he had lost ....well I can't imagine anything really bad happening. No one would have died, no typhoon would have hit Georgia, and the Earth wouldn't have even paused on it's path around the sun. No disaster that I could see.
You know, I think the disaster they were referring to was that had he lost the primary, some other candidate would have had an edge. Wow! That's pretty heavy duty. I can understand why the Times wrote such an impressive headline.
Seriously though, averts disaster? Who says the media is liberal? I would say that headline communicates a Romney bias. "Disaster" is a fully loaded word. It's definitely not on the list of neutral language. Not only that, the headline doesn't even begin to tell the reader what the article is about. Just glancing at the headline one would think at the very least, that Romney had taken over from a suddenly dead pilot and safely landed his private jet.
I know a little about journalism and that headline shrieks bias. My fifth and sixth graders have lessons on fact vs. opinion and propaganda. I think they would say that headline is definitely an opinion. And I would say opinion does not belong on the front page.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Donations
If you have a phone, you've had this experience. Once you make a charitable donation or a political donation you are on their list forever. You can ask them to remove your name and it may or may not solve the problem. At my house these charity solicitors call at about 8pm when we're trying to relax and to be honest watch TV. I am an avowed sucker for charitable donations. I don't give a lot but I do give. I also give to political causes like the National Organization for Women or the Sierra Club.
Lately, I have found myself on a list that sends care packages to soldiers overseas. The first time they called I was a bleeding heart and gave a small $25 donation. Their spiel is pretty good. Lonely soldiers, a long way from home, etc. Tugging your heartstrings works. But I'm pretty much done with them since they call every quarter wanting ever more money.
Moreover, I got to thinking about those "care packages". I pay a large percentage of my wages to the federal government which hires soldiers, declares wars, and such. If the troops need care packages perhaps this organization should call the people who sent these young men to some god-forsaken place. They should call the Bush ranch in Texas and ask for money. The Georges have plenty of money and they sent our troops over there in the first place. I never agreed to send troops to Iraq or Afghanistan. The people in that area of the world have been fighting with each other for centuries. Like Vietnam, we haven't a chance of "winning", even if anyone knows what that looks like. Saddam Hussein kept the factions in Iraq from fighting with tyranny and fear.
The decision to let the Pentagon "boys" go to the middle east to play with their "toys" was not mine. I don't advocate joining the military either. Really, I don't want to spend any more money to subsidize the military in this country. Troops in Afghanistan are not fighting for our freedom. That's plain ridiculous. A country stuck both culturally and economically in the middle ages is no threat to us. I feel for Afghan women but that's not a problem troops can solve.
Next time this organization calls, I think I'll tell them to call the people who send young men overseas. They are the ones responsible for "care packages".
Lately, I have found myself on a list that sends care packages to soldiers overseas. The first time they called I was a bleeding heart and gave a small $25 donation. Their spiel is pretty good. Lonely soldiers, a long way from home, etc. Tugging your heartstrings works. But I'm pretty much done with them since they call every quarter wanting ever more money.
Moreover, I got to thinking about those "care packages". I pay a large percentage of my wages to the federal government which hires soldiers, declares wars, and such. If the troops need care packages perhaps this organization should call the people who sent these young men to some god-forsaken place. They should call the Bush ranch in Texas and ask for money. The Georges have plenty of money and they sent our troops over there in the first place. I never agreed to send troops to Iraq or Afghanistan. The people in that area of the world have been fighting with each other for centuries. Like Vietnam, we haven't a chance of "winning", even if anyone knows what that looks like. Saddam Hussein kept the factions in Iraq from fighting with tyranny and fear.
The decision to let the Pentagon "boys" go to the middle east to play with their "toys" was not mine. I don't advocate joining the military either. Really, I don't want to spend any more money to subsidize the military in this country. Troops in Afghanistan are not fighting for our freedom. That's plain ridiculous. A country stuck both culturally and economically in the middle ages is no threat to us. I feel for Afghan women but that's not a problem troops can solve.
Next time this organization calls, I think I'll tell them to call the people who send young men overseas. They are the ones responsible for "care packages".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)