Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Gen. Peter Pace

General Peter Pace:
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in an interview with the newspaper. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way."
A few things I think are immoral:
Gen. Pace, why don't you focus your energy and efforts on fighting a war in which our military is currently losing instead of wasting your time arguing yet another failed policy position? Any person living in the real world knows that homophobes will be embarrassed in the history books. What is the point of bigotry when you especially have real problems on your plate?

Monday, March 12, 2007

An Open Letter to Al Gore

Dear Vice President (President?) Albert Gore,
Please do not run for President. Now is not the time or the place. You are doing far too much good in the fight against climate change. You'd have to stop you work for the next two years in order to focus on the campaign, and as you keep saying, time is of the essence in race to save our green earth.

Plus, don't you think you could be much more useful (and fun) to be the Secretary of Energy in a Democratic Administration? Think of all the great meetings you could have with oil company lobbyists and former Halliburton executives:

Gore: Hi, thanks for coming by.

Oil Lobbyist: Sure thing, thanks for having me. Let me fill you in on where I left off with the Bush administration.

Gore: Hold on a second. I wasn't aware the oil industry had anything useful to contribute to national energy policy any longer. We will be operating in the real world now with actual science used as the basis for policy. You have nothing to say? Like I said, thanks for coming by.

In either case, give the job some thought. It's much better for you than the Presidency.


Has the news always been about highlighting the stories that will attract the most viewers or the stories that are most important for the public to know? If it hasn't always been about the viewers, when did it change? Would Walter Cronkite cover Jon Benet Ramsey or Lacy Peterson, let alone Britney Spears and Anna Nicole Smith? If there was a change for stories of importance to stories of excitement, why was the change made? Or, has our interest in news changed from a need to know to a need to be entertained? I suppose we'd all rather be massaged than punched in the face.