YES, WORDS DO HAVE IMPACT AND INFLUENCE

Listening to legislators on the Right calling Obama a Socialist certainly points to their own ignorance, but it also gets to be believed by many when they hear it over and over again. The worst of them were elected and must be endured until the next election cycle.  Not so with those on media.  They have contracts.  I do not watch Fox News because of the hateful rhetoric and lies.  I looked forward to Keith Olbermann because, while he didn't mince words on his opinion...it was clear when he gave opinions but I was not aware that anyone ever accused him of lying.  If Olbermann was 'freed of his contract' because of his Liberal stance, MSNBC is ignorant of the importance his thinking is to so many of us.  Their popularity will fade as someone as forceful as Coombs will no doubt replace him.

We will be left with Chris Matthews who never lets his interviewees finish a thought as they attempt to answer his questions.  Ed Schultz is good, as is Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell. However, it seems the bosses want to have a B-flat media outlet.  It will cater to a B-flat audience.  I can only hope that people out there will have recognized the talent MSNBC had and tossed aside.  It will be like finding a treasure at a yard sale.Shame on MSNBC executives.  They are as knowledgeable about their viewers as Republicans are about the wishes of the 'American people'.

THERE IS MORE THAN ONE LAST WORD

Tonight Lawrence O'Donnell, on his MSNBC show, invited the leaders of five separate groups of the Teapartiers. None claimed leadership roles.  Each said that the Teaparty does not  need leaders, that as a leaderless group they have done very well.  They believe their goals are consistent with one another. They all said they wished for smaller, less intrusive government, and less socialism yet none could readily name a socialist program they would cut.  They all agreed, finally, that subsidies were socialistic but did not readily consider health care and social security as such.  For this observer, it was difficult to muster respect and comfort that these people knew enough to lead the country in a productive direction.

These group leaders were a contrast to the people the media has focused on as representative of the Teaparty's chosen candidates for office.  This group did not sound fanatical, rather confused, naive, and somewhat like a small child who, without any real knowledge,  thinks they can simply solve a problem...no hint of sequelae to their actions.

The questions asked by the interviewers. is often as useless as asking, :"What would Jesus do?"  This was not at all what O'Donnell did   It was a show run by a real pro.  He kept his focus and disallowed their spewing rhetoric instead of direct answers to what he asked of them.  Following Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann,
Rachel Maddow, his show, The Last Word, is aptly named.  Welcome to our world which is ready to be brought some reality, truth, balance, and integrity.

ISN'T IT AMAZING HOW MANY ILL-PREPARED AND UNINFORMED PEOPLE TRY TO ADVISE OBAMA?

It seems the media has done the world a disservice by thinking man-on-the-street interviews are useful. For a while interviewers were like vultures, asking for feelings of people in trauma from loss of loved ones, homes, life savings and the countless emotional reactions which shatter people. It seemed they couldn't stop badgering people until they got them to cry on camera. For some reason I either have stopped watching those shows or the producers decided it was the wrong way to go. I found them too intrusive and painful to watch (and this from a psychotherapist who has never minded hearing people's feelings). It was the blatant exploitation of the most private and painful struggles people were forced to describe for the disinterested or voyeuristic public which bothered me.

Now the me4dia has seemed to decide that anyone who has an opinion that differs from that of the current administration is worth being given air and camera time. Considering that the Cheney's (the Big Dick and his opinion clone, Liz) really have no voted-in standing of political office, it always galls me that their word is reported more often than Obama's.

My intent is not to be derisive about the man-on-the-street but have full intent to be so about the paid talking heads on radio and TV. They speak with not much more knowledge than the average citizen. What they know is usually passed on like the parlor game (telephone) so the what they finally say is not-recognizable, quite distorted and no longer accurate. I can only hope they are so thrilled that someone is asking their opinion and can have their 5 minutes of TV fame, many probably don't require much paid. The principals, however, earn huge amounts for reading teleprompters and occasionally being allowed to ask questions, cued by the bug in their ear. Chris Matthews, like Bill O'Reilly, ask lots of questions and then answer them before the guest is permitted to speak. Actually Chris Matthews belabors points to death, subjectively, before he gives an opportunity for his guest to resopnd, if he allows them to at all.

It should be sad for the media that many prefer infomercials and ads to their version of the news.

MEDIA SHOOTS LONG BEFORE THE WHITES OF EYES ARE VISIBLE

Chris Matthews: "He (Obama) has to turn away the public anger.....". Matthews makes no mention that the anger is being roiled up by the media, focused for days on raising that anger by speaking on things about which they know little or nothing. I am constantly shocked at the Babbitts in the Legislature. Legislators wasted our taxpayer money on a hearing, all morning, BEFORE they heard the testimony of the current, newly appointed AIG CEO, who came in to do the best he could after the disaster not of his making was in full catastrophe. It showed when their minds were closed and where they got their information. Those who claim their constituents are demanding bonuses be returned are as clueless as their constituents because the source of information has been the same erroneous guessing.

People in the Congress who spoke today only made me aware of how obtund most of them are. They flame, rant, and talk threateningly, raising promises of what they will do, while all the time never listening to facts.

AIG was the target today. If the employees had been black two generations ago, they'd have been lynched by now, apologized for later. What our politicians fail to recognize is that not everyone employed at AIGFP in London, or the many other sites ordered to be closed had anything to do with policy decisions. The workers in IT, for example, made a minimal salary and the yearly bonus was, if fact, their real income on which they lived. When one of the Congressmen asked if replacements couldn't easily be found for all the employees, I cringed. Just because Legislators require no particular skill for their job and need little by way of a learning curve to do it, they should not assume that is true in all corporations. There are those who have set up offices, know exactly how everything works and where everything is backed up as required by the FBI, the IRS, and all other governmental noses stuffed in to find out what happened.

Death threats for just doing your job (the few top people who were really responsible for the major problems are long gone) are pretty much undeserved. In the States, employees are having their cars vandalized and are fearful of the mob mentality that the media is helping to escalate. It is laughable that only Rush Limbaugh was sympathetic when, (I was told) he said 'let them have their bonuses; after all, they're out of a job soon') CEO compensation has been out of hand for many years now. Non-profit companies have been indulging their CEOs with huge bonuses for many years. It became a way of life but was at its worst when employees were paid a minimum salary for the job they did, but unlike food service people they got no tips from customers. Instead, just as with food service waiters, waitresses, bartenders, etc., their 'tips' came in the form of a bonus...no doubt an tax advantage to the company or some other devious reason.

During the campaign I complained bout Chris Matthews (MSNBC)asking guests for an answer or opinion and talks over them. I'm surprised anyone wants to appear on his show he is so discourteous. Then there is Pat Buchanan who does the same and even talked over Matthews. Someone needs to stop the rabble-rousing before people are really hurt, or worse, killed. Will the media take their responsibility for firing up rage over such a tempest in a teapot? I sincerely doubt it. They haven't done so in the past that I can recall.

BIDEN-PALIN DEBATE

Despite the apparent wish of the media to see more action or a TKO, the debate was somewhat benign and predictable. In my opinion, Biden won hands-down. However, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and those willing to assume charm is worth more than substance saw it differently than I did. Biden smiled a beautiful, white, toothful smile at some of Palins remarks and attacks but only spoke to correct the inaccuracy of some of Palin's reflections on the Obama positions.

Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, saw Palin realistically while Pat Buchanan, MSNBC, thought Palin did a wonderful job and won the debate. He could hardly stop raving about it. Rachel Maddow seemed to get it right when she said you could choose Biden (boring and right) or Palin (exciting and wrong). Catty Kay on the BBC thought that McCain needed more tonight from Palin than charm. She added that, because of the way the poll numbers are running currently, this might not have gone well for McCain. The woman rarely answered the question that was asked, often changed the subject to refer back to something she was more comfortable answering, usually to say what she had done as Mayor of that tiny town or as Governor of the 600,00+ people of that 'big state' of Alaska. She totally lacked substance in her answers. David Gregory, MSNBC, thought Palin had a game plan to which she stuck but did not add that she was particularly successful. Chris Matthews took issue with her saying she thought the powers of the Vice President should be expanded and read her as not planning to play by the rules. CNN offered focus group's responses which seemed to be a strong preference for Obama. One woman, who I had understood to be an independent going in, decided she liked what Palin had to say. The woman looked like a deer caught in the headlights, spoke slowly and seemed to have difficulty getting out her thoughts, so I was not clear on what part of Palin's responses she was using to change or solidy her vote.

Biden offered much historical data and did not bite at Palin's attempts to unseat him with her homespun darts. Her cutesy, raised voice at the beginning, asking if she could call Biden Joe, started her attempt to convince everyone that she, more than Biden, would be for six-pack Joe and middle America. However, on the substantive issues, she follows McCain who follows Bush.
Biden defined the job of the VP as one in which he follows the lead of the President and acts as an adviser, influencing the Legislature only when a tie needs to be broken. Palin expressed that she would be more engaged with the Legislature, seeming not to understand the Constitution on this matter any more than Cheney had, with Bush allowing himself to be led by the nose by 'Big Dick'.

Palin, at one point, said she did not have to compromise much and did not care who got credit in her state. (She is obviously able to speak constantly of all she has done as Mayor and, later, Governor). Biden quoted Mike Mansfield, an early mentor to him. Mansfield taught him to never question motive, only judgments. Biden matched Palin emotionally about single parenting, sadness, and losses which Palin glossed over with no hint of empathy then tried to make her own unrelated point.

To me, Biden answered questions quickly, concisely, and did not play games. Palin skirted answering the questions, chose to make her own political speech instead, and never answered a question as to how McCain would effect change. She only expressed where she thought change was needed. She spouted the Bush/McCain party line throughout and I saw eight more years of Bush policym if she and MCain get to the White House, with panic in my heart.

MSNBC IS A SPECULATION CHANNEL, NOT NEWS

Aside from an occasional National feed of news, live, like a school shooting or a weather disaster, police chasing a car, the main action is speculation. 'Pundit' after 'pundit' and similar panelists take up hour after hour guessing...as though their guess has better odds than those of the listeners.

Heard tonight on Hardball, the Chris Matthews show: "Can Obama win over the regular folks against McCain?" And, I wished I could ask, "...and could you please explain where these regular folks are and how I can find them?" Perhaps they are the 'working class' people. Do we still have lots of coupon cutters in our day? They didn't call them poor class, or middle class...just working class. I think all CEOs think they work, don't they?

I'm sure I am not the only one who is exhausted from changing channels when the panelists start deciding and recommending the candidate for the job of VP. Since there will be an imminent announcement forthcoming, why should we be treated to their guessing? Clearly none of them are on the inside of the process or are they secretly being urged to send up trial balloons?

Chris Matthews, who contributed greatly to knocking Hillary Clinton out of the race is now actively campaigning for her to be nominated to share the ticket with Obama. Whatever his motive for that, I can't believe it is coming from his crystal balls which are looking fairly fragile as his following slowly has dropped. When will the man learn the difference between racial and ethnic? That he wants to learn nothing is reflected by the fact that he has not shared a way to be reached by email.

SEXISM THRIVING IN THE SEXIST MEDIA

The Women's Media Center has put out a great video and it is wonderful to watch and listen to all the media guys who think they are not sexist, while being flagrantly sexist. One sound bite is Chris Matthews insisting that the reason Hillary Clinton is a Senator is because her husband 'messed around'. That is not only an insult to this woman who is so far brighter and superior to him in every way, but it is an insult to the NY voters who intelligently voted her in, and then voted her in for another term (when her husband wasn't messing around).

One, intellectually challenged, speaking about Hillary, who by now must be post menopausal, spoke of 'besides the PMS and mood swings'.... Male menopause comes when the skull sucks up hair, letting it come through ears, nose, eyebrows, as 'manhood' weakens elsewhere. Someone should remind these men that there is also a male climacteric and they are in it! They may joke about women's mood swings but fail to see themselves as they become crabby, opinionated, grumpy old men and their butt drops off. (I have yet to see a man over 60 who hasn't lost the curve he used to have behind him, below his waist....or has it now moved up to between his shoulders?) These men remind me of the joke in which the mother is telling her daughter that an older man is like a Christmas tree. The daughter looks confused and asks how that can be. Mother replies, "Well, like the Christmas tree, he is dead at the root and has balls only for decoration."

The church began to push women to the side when one of the old priests decided Mary Magdellan was a prostitute. He spread the word and made it stick (sounds like he was a Karl Rove ancestor). Women were eventually pushed out of the church management as neatly as Bush got rid of the Constitution and job description of the President. I recall spending an Easter in Greece and being taken to a church service in which all women stood on one side of the church while all men sat on the other!

Wait until more women unite and the sisterhood becomes less like sibling rivalry. Then we'll see how these peacocks we refer to as 'men in the media' quack and quickly let their tail feathers down. When this voting period is over, we will be as clear about the poor judgment of our acquaintances and neighbors as we became by those who voted for Bush and were unable to see through him during his perpetual motion campaign for eight years in office. So we will recognize all the women who are so insecure and trodden on by being women that they quickly ran to a handsome man who promised hope. Rather than risk voting for someone who might be as weak as they feel themselves, the sheep followed the Shepherd. What a pity that the Phyllis Schlaflys seem to be a majority still....those who cower around men, the Stepford wives of today. Sadly, the plumbing may make men physically stronger in majority but brains trump it all. Hopefully women will some day learn that they really are equal, not just hope that men will come to believe it. They will also learn that equality does not mean Unisex bathrooms but equality of opportunity...equal pay for equal work and proper respect shown for achievement, not ridicule as we have seen shown Hillary Clinton through this campaign. Luckily for us we believe Barack Obama is a good candidate and that the Democratic party has not been ripped asunder as the self-proclaimed pundits would hope to convince us

The Psychology Department published an ambivalency test you can take. Try it if you care or dare.

PRESS SECRETARY'S CONVERSION TO TRUTH TELLING

McClellan has certainly shocked a few people with his new book: "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," Chris Matthews was interviewing Ari Fleischer and was deeply insulted, telling Ari he didn't need to resort to sarcasm when he asked Ari a question about McClellan and the job, talked over his answer, then demanded an answer from him. Mr. Fleischer, who had lost my respect with all the lies he covered when he was the White House Press Secretary, raised my respect a nanometer when he had told Matthews at the first opening left him, "When you stop your filibuster I will answer your question." I thought Matthews did admirably to almost hide and control his rage his rage.

Apparently Bush administration staffers find the book "puzzling". McClellan's current negativity regarding Bush's desire to be remembered as a 'great' president was on learning that Bush believed that greatness comes through being a war President. It does cause a regurgitating reflux to think he did that for his own gain at the expense of so many thousands of lives lost and ruined. Such arrogance will go down for greatness, not as the greatest success as his deluded thinking might have hoped, but as the greatest failure as a President whom we have seen in the US.

The book sounds like it might be a good read....I think I'll try it though little is needed to prove we have been lied to for eight years. Rather than trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, it is simpler to just assume that nothing that comes out of the Administration it a truth....and may even be more accurate.

THE GAMES THAT SHOULDN'T BE

As the pundits sit in a round table on MSNBC, the older ones talk about past US Presidents and how these TV personalities were speech writers in the 'game' of politics. War is a game; politics is a game, and I guess to guys, most things are games. I rather doubt women think of those areas in the same deprecating way.

Throughout, this reminiscing of the past was a premature eulogy for Ted Kennedy. It served to show me the shallowness of the MSM (Main Stream Media). If one didn't know that there are many people who actually work towards causing things to happen, not just talk about what should be, or could be done, it might be even more depressing to me.

Somali children invent a new 'war game'...Ethiopians and Islamists. I don't see any little girls' faces in there but that doesn't mean there aren't any. Little boys seem to be being trained as insurgents. I dread the thought of what the little girls will be used for.

There is even a game about the 'political battleground'.

For those of us who are serious about our welfare and that of our future citizens (our children and their children and others' children) the attitude expressed this evening on the Chris Matthews show, as he talked over everyone, was to me a continuation of disappointments in American media. Most on CNN, when I tuned in there, seemed less egotistical. While the MSNBC crew talked more about themselves, CNN with their great graph and other visuals, explained the candidate's race. Since I have too much of a negative visceral reaction to Hannity, O'Reilly and others on Fox I could not make myself turn to that channel, even to be fair and balanced in this blog.

People, stop playing. Recess is over now. Let's get to work on this country! Let's make it a better place to live than it has been for the past 8 years, at very least!

MEN WITH SMALL, JOURNALIST COHONES

Eric Boehlert wrote on Chris Matthews for Media Matters for America. His historic overview validated the feelings many of us have about the man towards whom former admiration has turned to complete dislike and disrespect. When he used to have Mike Barnicle replace him, or as a guest, I thought it was only Barnicle who was misogynistic. However, it is clear that they both are so. Boehlert reminds us that is was Matthews quoted in the Boehlert article: "It's just that the Times politely chose to ignore them. So readers still probably have no idea that Matthews:

• featured a Photoshopped image of Clinton sporting "She Devil" horns while discussing Republican efforts to demonize her;

• repeatedly likened Clinton to "Nurse Ratched," the scheming, heartless character from the mental hospital drama One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest;

• described her laugh as a "cackle," suggested she was "anti-male," "witchy," and was on a "short ... leash";

• referred to Clinton as "Madame Defarge" and described male politicians who endorsed Clinton as "castratos in the eunuch chorus";

• compared Clinton to a "strip-teaser," wondered whether she was "a convincing mom," referred to Clinton's "cold eyes" and the "cold look" she supposedly gives people;

• claimed that "some men" say Clinton's voice sounds like "fingernails on a blackboard."

Nothing like that has been said about any of the Republican women. Instead he has done nothing but praise Kay Bailey Hutchinson, whom I hear as an echo to Republican policies for the past eight years. Does that suggest that only Democrat women are frightening because they have original thoughts, because they are not frightened and cow-towing to the men, because they are strong enough to withstand the demeaning and lying comments made by the men?

Long enough ago that most voters today would not remember, Freud used to describe all women as having 'penis envy'. The poor Victorian man was quite mistaken and feminists wrote that it was not 'penis envy' but 'penis pity', a concept that only resulted in pornography growing in sales with video being easy to market, and later through the Internet, of men getting their jollies by watching women being totally subjugated and demeaned in front of their eyes. It obviously served as sublimation to the shaky sense of masculinity in so many men who feared dealing with women gaining ground in voice and actions.
Domestic violence against women is a disturbingly common occurrence in the United States. There are still cultural factors at work as immigrants from less modern countries arrive here with less advanced views on equality of women.

Behavior therapy introduced a focus on the difference between assertiveness and aggressiveness. However, success of women blinds many men to that differentiation. Any woman with a strong voice and action is seen as aggressive, while many men continue under the delusion that women are their chattel, though the law changed that status many decades ago. Remnants of the male struggle to hold onto that position is evident in what the predominantly male law enforcers have ignored for a hundred years here in the United States. The condescension in their notion that women are invited into Heaven by their satisfied husbands is evident in their misogynistic community.

Phyllis Schlafly led an conflicted movement to prevent the Equal Rights Amendment. She wanted women to hold onto their traditional roles and be a stay-at-home-Moms to raise their children. Men seemed to want that as well but the economy became such that many women found it necessary to work outside the home. Men still wanted the status quo and do nothing but go to work, come home to a cooked meal, do no housework, have little responsibility for child care, and the wives, working a full-time job outside the home, do everything else they had always done. For those kind husbands who assisted, it was said they 'helped' their wives with the wife's work. Young couples of today might find that either sad or amusing, since couples have evolved to a much more shared responsibility in their marriage partnership and childrearing.

Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and all the other misogynists who control the airwaves are a dying breed. They will soon find out that the media might still be controlled as the masses don't have the time to spend to search for the truth, but it will reach them through satire, cartoons, comic strips, and comedy. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, the writers of South Park, and others are reaching a larger audience than the major 'news' channels and are far more trustworthy and believable because they usually demonstrate with actual video clips, previously aired by traditional media, the lies politicians are telling and later recounting and waffling about.

Hopefully, in a few years these 'journalists' will stop saying they 'love' women just as they might say they' love' their pets.

WE TOO SOON FORGET OR MISS IT

Roaming through YouTube, I came across an interview that Crossfire did with Jon Stewart in 2004. Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson are the interviewers, Jon Stewart the interviewee. By his honesty and directness, Jon Stewart illustrated in only moments why the media is worthless today. It is shocking that a comedian shows himself the politically wiser and greater patriot while the interviewers stubbornly hear only their own voices without a perception of the reaction of their audience.. It is shocking that a comedian shows himself the wiser philosopher and patriot while the interviewers remain clueless and absurd. It is a must-view, even if you saw it and have forgotten it from 2004. He accused them of partisan hackeryand pleaded with them to stop hurting the country..

It took until January of 2005 for CNN to realize just what Jon Stewart had made apparent, that they had two ridiculous, self-serving people on view who were responsible for the speed with which viewers were jumping the CNN ship. MSNBC, who was then picking up more viewers made the mistake of hiring Tucker Carlson (whom they have also now kept more often on the bench, though he still creeps in on panels) and who finally proved himself as worthless to an audience interested in facts, not opinion. His show was canceled recently. Perhaps the powers looked at viewing numbers had noted that having Tucker Carlson on 2 hours of prime time was not productive. This viewer is trying to be patient and give David Gregory, his replacement a trial since I'm apprehensive he will also fall off his pedestal along with Matthews and Olbermann and Russert. I still have some hope for Dan Abrams.

MEDIA NEWS: IT'S JUST MORE ENTERTAINMENT

While I have frequently written that I think the media has been against Hillary, the other day I was reminded just how nasty they have become. There has been much talk about how her continuing to campaign is hurting the Democratic party. I was shocked to hear (on MSNBC, Keith Olbermann), that she should be given the 'hook'. To me that proved that they are equating something as serious as our choosing a U.S. President with Vaudeville. I was as shocked as any American interested in bettering this country and correcting bad elections could have been.

Infuriated, I went to the MSNBC site. There used to be email contacts available for the major entertainers (I choke trying to call them anything else) but there is no longer anywhere I could find on the site to do so . If there is a place on their site, they have made it too obscure for me to find it. So I wrote to CNN (who still allows email to their people) and asked if Wolf Blitzer will pass on a message to the clueless Chris Matthews and MSNBC staff that there is a difference between race and ethnicity. Why Tweety has been permitted to make this error continuously for months appalls me but I am not surprised that people don't seem to speak accurately or use proper English on TV any more. I am reminded of the blue collar comedians saying, "There is no cure for stupidity!"

The station's sexism shows as women spit out the news in the daytime but the men hold fort during the prime time hours. The women, for the most part read the news. The men make more prejudicial comments with great assertion, as though their opinions mean more.

With most of the news channels on my 'do not watch' list, I spend more time running around the world for news of America. What a different view the world has of us than we, ourselves, try to convince others.

ARE COLUMNISTS CAPABLE OF TOTAL OBJECTIVITY?

Columnists usually believe themselves to be objective and non-biased. Sometimes their denial is massive. Today, Stanley Fish in the NY Times wrote about his reasons for writing. I read and reread these particular few sentences: "When, for example, I wrote three columns criticizing the atheist tracts written by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, I was motivated not by a belief in God — which I may or may not have, you’ll never know — but by what I took to be sloppy, schoolboy reasoning that was passing itself off as wisdom. I could have been an atheist myself, and I still would have found the so-called logic of these books weak and risible."

Having read much from all three of these authors, I fail to see the 'so-called logic' as weak. Much of their 'logic is based on inconsistencies in the Bible that can be proven so by science as compared to that which writers on religion say must be taken on faith. There may or may not be a "God" (as in some power higher than man) but man was probably not created in his image and is not the God that has been described as omniscient and omnipotent, who hears all and sees all, a point on which few Atheists would disagree. Their arguments are usually aimed more towards religion as practiced and preached in churches, temples, mosques or elsewhere.

In reviewing many of the columns that appear on the Internet, I began to wonder what happens when they are written that differs when the columnists become guests on media panels and interviews where responses are not given time to be edited. I realized that those same columnists speak quite differently when they are allowed to express their biases in agreement with the host moderator. Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune is one such example. His columns are beautifully written in the manner of an excellent trained journalist, representing facts rather than opinion. He frequently appears on MSNBC with Chris Matthews (who is clearly anti-Hillary). It saddened me to watch Clarence Page being drawn into exposing himself as biased against Senator Clinton on that show. It wouldn't have been so offensive if he had been only biased FOR Obama. Matthews has often said that he can't understand why all 'black ethnics', mislabeling race as ethnic, wouldn't vote for Obama, one of their own kind. If that is a criteria Matthews thinks is sufficient to choose a president, I'm shocked! He dishonors not only Blacks, but his own race as well.

What makes it all worse is that the media execs are reported to be dictating positions to be taken by pundits on their channels. Apparently political loyalty and retaining jobs are more important than truth or what is best for the country. It is a clear position that is taken in the Administrative, Legislative Branch, Judicial Branch, and media. That lack of integrity has permeated our culture. Power begets power, When used to keep the less powerful in a helpless position through any means, life in the good old USA is no longer balanced

THE POLITICAL HORSE RACE

Tonight the talking heads on TV have been reporting as though this is a game. My former idol, Keith Olbermann has toppled off his pedestal, in my eyes. I miss the straight talking man who wrote letters to President Bush and read them with a firm tone, sincerity, and the blunt truths. I have long since abandoned all hope that Chris "Tweety" Matthews is an unbiased, competent news reporter. It seems something has gone to his head and coming out of his mouth in a most undesirable way. I presume it is that Washington sense of power and entitlement that we heard in Cokie Roberts when Bill Clinton became President. The derision in her voice as she laughed that he thought he could come in to Washington and change things!! If only the audience were not a bunch of sheep who don't stand up to these talking heads and let them know that they really do not run, but rather ruin, the country (with their opinions given as fact), as though they know more about how to run the country because they have been in Washington longer.

Perhaps I should be more sympathetic to their plight, that they have to make sounds come out of their mouths all the while the camera is on them and running. However, I cannot feel sympathetic. Chris Matthews take his own opinion so seriously that he talks over his guests constantly. He asks the questions, answers them, all in a breath...often leaving his guests totally looking like a deer caught in headlights. They don't seem to know what to say or do.

However this day's elections result, let us hope that the country will soon be better off than it has been in the past eight years while it has been being raped by the present administration. This may not have been noticed by many because the country's virtue had long been lost and very few screamed loud enough to be heard in the Fort Knox security of the Oval Office.

There is not much left but to wait, watch and see....but can we last until November? That leaves us with an 10 month gestation period before we can learn who the new parent of the country will be. We will be very exhausted, impoverished, and anxious about the future of the country that is slowly committing suicide, with little support or hope for recovery.

WHY THE WORLD FOR WOMEN CHANGES SLOWLY

In one common experiment, the Goldberg Paradigm, people are asked to evaluate a particular article or speech, supposedly by a man. Others are asked to evaluate the identical presentation, but from a woman. Typically, in countries all over the world, the very same words are rated higher coming from a man. Since the provocative findings of an early study by Goldberg (1968), researchers have addressed the possibility that evaluations of others and their work may be prejudicial against women. Goldberg obtained evidence which appeared to indicate that raters of a series of articles (attributed to male or female authors) showed a degree of bias against the work of females. Goldberg's subjects were female students, and Goldberg's conclusion was that females are prejudiced against other females.

In most states, polls show Hillary Clinton ahead of Barack Obama among voters making $50,000 a year or less -- many of whom say the economy is their top concern. Yes, the New York senator who appeared on the cover of Fortune magazine as Big Business's candidate is winning economically insecure, lower-income communities over the Illinois senator who grew up as an organizer helping those communities combat unemployment. This absurd phenomenon is a product of both message and bias.

Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks has a lot of fun with the clip featuring progressive writer Naomi Wolf and Fox News anchorman Shepard Smith. Shepard Smith talks over her, points a finger and says, "Don't go Fox on me!" There were then, on TYT, jokes made about the newscasters on Fox not giving news but giving propaganda and how frightened they would be to have to go look for another job which would actually require them to find and present actual truth and news.

Women are still underpaid in comparison to men. A recent study on ABC suggested the bias which exists against women being hired. Men and women being asked the same questions and giving the same answers were perceived differently.

It was very gratifying to see that MSNBC suspended David Shuster from further broadcasting because of his perjorative remark about Chelsea Clinton. While I did not read the NY Times chastising of Chris Matthews for his biased statements against Hillary Clinton, I understand that there was one. It is about time the media polices its own for perpetuating biases against women and, all I can say is, shame on the women who allow it and help keep it going out of their own fear that they will somehow be different if they are seen as equal and different from men. Remember, in the Stepford Wives, it was a women who turned all of them into robots, not a man! In A Knight's Tale, Rufus Sewell equates women to cattle. The brotherhood of men should be ashamed that their view of women has evolved so little in several centuries.

LEARNING FULL STORIES IS DIFFICULT

The media has become more than ridiculous. The real journalists are gone, only to show up for brief moments, almost as afterthoughts as Tom Brokaw came on after the New Hampshire primaries. There are few entertainer/journalists left whom I can watch and respect. Keith Olbermann is one of the few to speak up to the administration as well as to entertainer/journalists. Do people forget that almost everything, including committed crimes, is frequently on videotape.

YouTube is one of the best things to happen to dampen people's penchant for rewriting history. Fox News, changing a transcript for history is laughable. If anyone doubts that Big Brother of 1984 is really here, stop doubting. It is laughable that it is claimed that evidence was lost because the FBI didn't pay its bills, or failed to pay them on time while breaking the law by taping private conversations.

Mistakes can happen. After all, all humans are fallible, even those who think they have a direct pipeline to God. It would be more comforting to believe that much of the media is making simple mistakes, but intelligent people, given all the evidence otherwise, would be making an error of their own to believe that. It is very interesting that Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard Editor, knew so definitely that Senator Clinton was faking tears in New Hampshire. What does that say about his own readiness to do whatever, say whatever, it takes to prove his point.

Too many people I know think their own lives of denial are more important than informing themselves as fully as our media and news sources permits. I suggest that, even as adults, we still have lots of daily homework to do.

MORE ON MEDIA SLANT

It is always interesting to see what other nations think of us. It is also interesting to hear what media think of itself. This BBC reporter was critical of the reporting before and after the primary and is clear that the media will do nothing to change. Honesty from a journalist; how novel; how sad! It means journalists-turned-entertainers will continue to be self-serving, struggle to beat others to views which they can only hope have some accuracy. They feel little shame that their often-untrue comments, believed by those who trust them, actually influence voters and the outcome of elections, which I have come to see as the 'Rush Limbaugh effect'.

I was thrilled that one reporter, a woman from New Hampshire had to tell Chris Matthews, first to listen as he continued to talk over everyone, then to make the distinction that Iowa (where votes are public) and New Hampshire (where they are secret) differ as New Hampshire people consider it insulting to be asked for whom they voted.

Last night, Jon Stewart, on the Daily show showed those few second clips of many of the pundits spouting their incorrect predictions. It was like time lapse photography leading to the same conclusion, in effect, a loop. They start out listening to themselves, then begin to believe it is truth. His guest for the evening was Zogby of the polls. As only Jon Stewart can do, he was able to get Zogby to admit how little real value polls have for learning in advance what electoral outcome will be. While Jon Stewart is an entertainer, not a journalist, he fulfills both roles better than any of the journalists who are trying to be entertainers.

OPEN LETTER TO CHRIS MATTHEWS OF MSNBC

Since you have chosen to emulate Rush Limbaugh as an entertainer rather than a journalist, you have campaigned for your choice instead of reporting in an unbiased way. You have fallen off my list of media personalities whom I can respect, ergo watch. That will not change your life significantly, but it will change mine.

With much tension leading to final delight, I watched the results of the New Hampshire primary last night. One blogger believes that Diebold was tampered with though he repeats he has no evidence of it. Today another blogger was apparently mentioned in a tiny spot in the NY Times saying that you, Chris Matthews, helped Hillary win by your obviously biased, negative, mouthy stance. After all, the media also holds a bully pulpit and its misuse is as unconscionable as is the President's.

Buchanan thinks the media beat Hillary up and hurt her feelings which rallied women behind her. You, Chris Matthews obviously didn't recognize what the bright ones, the Dartmouth students, were able to see, that Hillary has spoken substance where Obama has not.

Hillary is right when she says it is the toughest glass ceiling to break through. How unwise of you to have allowed yourself to so blatantly advertise your disrespect for women to your large audience. You talk about your Catholicism frequently. Do you believe the Priests is to be respected while the Nuns are only their hand maidens?

Having tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you were not trying to damage Hillary, I blamed what you were saying on your producers. I now see how long I resisted believing that you had compromised your professional reputation and sold out to thinking that only you can be right on. You talk over the people to whom you have asked a question and you cut off people who disagree with your position. I am pleased that you were not successful in New Hampshire last night in totally manipulating voters your way.

AFTER THE IOWA CAUCUS

For a long time I have been watching MSNBC because it was more fair and balanced than Fox. I admired Chris Matthews, until recently when he stopped being a journalist and has resorted to spewing his own brand of snake oil sales for his own beliefs. He asks questions of people he is interviewing then talks over their answers. He makes his personal choices clear to his audience and supports them with fantasy such as, "I'm sure they are now in their living room talking about ....." and other totally made up statements which he then offers as though fact. He leads the people he is interviewing and cuts them off when he doesn't like what he is hearing. He makes evident that his own opinion is most important than anyone else's on his air time. I often wonder what Tip O'Neil would think of him today!! What a disappointment! He is obsessed with the fact that Hillary Clinton won't let her nose be rubbed in puppy poop for her vote on Iraq though it is clear she says she would not have voted had she known the truth. Now he insists she SHOULD have known the truth!

There is one clear voice who remains on MSNBC, Keith Olbermann, who can tell it like it is without having to make up material to substantiate his opinions but states them clearly with explanations from whence those opinions emanate. Even Tim Russert has slipped a little from his professional pedestal, though I believe he tries to be fair and objective.

Wouldn't it be nice if the media didn't pretend that they had crystal balls but just reported truths and not their opinionated guesses!