One of the major differences betwen FOX News and the others

The first thing I notice about FOX news on the web is their rhetorical style. On the front pages you’ll find headlines with question marks on them.  This is unusual, because the media should be reporting information, not asking questions. One would think.

But the reality is, they’re suggesting something without actually saying it, thus there is no burden of proving it. They let your mind sort of fill in the blanks and their job is done. Many people who respond to this type of media, do not realize that a question mark really means they aren’t certain of or lack proof for their claims. They take it to mean that it’s something that is actually happening and the question mark is there for flavor.

Is Obama blah blah blah?

Was Obama blah blah blah?

That is a very dishonest approach to journalism, especially when someone’s name is in the mix.

They also always seem to often show pictures of Obama smiling, while captioning the smile with something that is supposed to sound negative or stir irritation.

Conversely, they will show him frowning, and caption it with something I dunno, something about patriotism or something exclusively American. It’s ridiculous. I don’t know how any mature adult can’t see this and think “This is messed up.” It’s amazing what you can do with a smile or a frown, even when they have absolutely nothing to do with what is written underneath them. Human beings can be very easily manipulated, by things as simple as a facial expression.

I click on the other stations and media outlet websites.  Obama looks a decent guy. Nope, no articles about people getting chills when he talks, sorry.  I wouldn’t prefer that kind of rhetoric either, but I just don’t see it happening.  However, I click on FOX news, Obama looks like a villain out of a comic book.

At www.foxnews.com, I’m currently treated to a smirking Obama that when combined with their selective quotations and wording makes it look as if he’s asking the House to finish a mafia hit instead of their heatlhcare bill. There is definitely a message here, even though it’s not explicitly written.  FOX is not just reporting the news, they’re also telling you how to interpret the news.  Sometimes they are subtle about it, and others times more blunt.  But it’s always there.  There’s always this extra message unnecessarily attached to the news.

Why can’t they caption the photos with what they were actually taken from? “Here is Obama smiling at an old acquaintance (not pictured)”.  Would that be too fair and balanced?

It’s just as effective to show Obama smiling heartily while displaying some text that causes outrage or disgust.  And I’ve seen this type of thing before on FOX.

FOX will always lose the fairness contest with the other stations, because other stations just don’t do this.

And where are the other stories in the world? Apparently on FOX nothing is ever going on except something that Obama’s doing, or some domestic event that can be spun as terrorism.  Also, where are the debates?  On CNN when they will often have editorials in pairs, with completely opposing views from each other.  Where is that on FOX?  Where’s the fair and balanced?  Writing editorials is arguable, ok, because everyone does it.  By why only have one type of editorial?  Why not encourage actual debate?  Is it unAmerican to have a debate now?  Should just accept one view point and not question it?

FOX probably has a world news section, but how often do you see something on their main page about starving in Africa?  Or how about what China is up to?  You know, our only real competitor in the world.  You’d think they’d have some interest in that topic.  Would it anger the sponsors FOX?  As it turns out, I get my news about China from MSNBC.  For some reason, they are not afraid to post stories about that topic that are unsettling and make us question whether we should be trading with this nation.  Nor do they fear monger over it.  They post news stories in a factual, straight forward manner in which I’m able to draw my own conclusions.  From the same article, I can conclude that the article is not a big deal, or that it’s a disaster; depending on my own prejudices.   It’s not inherent in the article that I should interpret it a certain way.  That must mean it’s a balanced article.

Continuing on, Europe of course doesn’t matter, unless they do something stupid, in which case FOX will have some stories for a good old folksy laugh at the expense of our allies across the pond.  Most things I read on that site just poop attacks wrapped in stars and stripes.  But the stain comes leaking through.

This station is not just biased, it’s bad for our country to have information intepreted for us.  Just give us the information, please.  I don’t need to see a picture of Obama grinning ear to ear, pinned over something disastrous that happened happened.  I can form my own opinions without your help.  Thanks!

Outline of Republican health care alternative bill

I’ve been thinking about what type of ideas that Republicans might offer in opposition to Obama’s health plan.  I’ve decided to help them by drafting a rough outline.  The entirety of this reform would only cost $1 Billion dollars, which is rather small and very fiscally conservative in comparison.

I.  Avoid the D-word

- It is important for the public to know that saying the word d***h is bad luck, and might cause anyone to spontaneously d**.  Discussion of topics involving d***h are strictly prohibited under this bill, as we don’t need any more bad luck sources than we already have.

- $188 million.

II.  Awareness of respiration when driving by cemetaries.

- Spread public awareness about about the need to hold ones breath when driving by cemeteries, in honor of the dead.  Lest they rise from their graves and turn you into a zombie.

- $102 million.

III.  Awareness of sidewalk cracks.

- It is important for the public to know that stepping on a crack in the sidewalk may cause spontaneous spinal injuries in their mothers.  The amount of money saved by avoiding these cracks should be rather significant.

- $76 million.

IV.  Ladder awareness and prevention

- It is important for the public to know that walking under ladders causes bad luck, which can lead to significant delayed injury.  As well, this will likely reduce the lawsuits against ladder companies.  Doing so will help keep bad luck under control and health care costs down as a result.

- $79 million.

V. Elimination of all 13th floors.

- While many buildings have opted to re-label 13th floors as 14, we have found that this is not effective in deterring bad luck.  This proposal will require all buildings to simply not build past 12 stories, that way the number 13 can be avoided entirely.  We can’t risk direct exposure to that number.

- $84 million.

VI.  Establish “Department of Taboo Security.”

The most costly option involved, will ensure that the above statutes are enforced and deployed effectively in order to reduce health care costs.  We estimate the rewards of doing so to be in the trillions of dollars, over time.

- $467 million.

Disclaimer: The above work is satire, any similarity to the actual views of the opposition to Obama’s health care reform is coincidental.

My thoughts on how stupid suicide is

One major flaw with suicide (besides the obvious) is that it’s mostly an appeal for attention, and the people won’t be around to see the attention they might get from it.
That and the attention that you don’t even see doesn’t last very long.  Maybe a few weeks or months, maybe even a year.  Then it’s yesterday’s news, and everybody goes about their lives like it never happened.

The impassioned, romantic songs about it are wrong.  We are wired to care about ourselves first, and when people die we pause briefly to honor them, and then we move on; while they don’t.

Don’t believe the hype, you will be forgotten.  People will get over it, and you will have wasted your one chance at existence.

You will not continue to exist somehow in their memories, you will be a closed page on a partially finished book that is someone else’s life.

Globalization

There are a lot of people that are scared of globalization, and I used to be one of them.

However, if you look at the long run of the human race, it is inevitable. The way I see it we have two options: Factionalize and annilhilate each other, or slower but surely become globalized. This won’t happen overnight, and probably not even in our lifetimes, but it seems that out of the two choices it is the better option.

What other choices are there? Not that I think it will always be a good thing, and in fact could be a very bad thing. Who knows. But the system we have right now is showing its age, and for better or worse it is changing.

Also, if you are a Christian it is presumed to be one of the last things that happens before the end times. So really, regardless of your worldview, what does it matter?

It’s not going to happen anytime soon.

But it seems to be inevitable and will be brought about not by centuries old conspirators, but by natural human tendencies.

Blaming it on specific individuals or even groups of people is just venting your frustration at your inability to control nature and time.

The myth that Bush was a victim of the media

With Bush now firmly behind us, Republicans are trying desperately to rewrite the history books.

“Bush was a victim of the liberal media”, “A good President who’s only fault was being in office during 9/11.”

They are hoping if they flood blogs, craigslist, the Internet, and their dying partisan news channel with this that it will eventually be accepted by the public.

But let’s look at the facts, shall we?

Was 9/11 the monkey wrench that changed Bush’s presidency? Yes and no.

Before 9/11 Bush had an approval rating of 55%. In the weeks following 9/11 Bush’s approval rating surged to 92%!

That is simply unprecedented approval from the public (aka the liberal media as they call it). Bush was in fact, very well received in his efforts to tackle terrorism after we were attacked so brutally. Attacking Afganistan for harboring Bin Laden and refusing to give him up, was the right thing to do. Nearly all Americans except the most pacifist among us, gave approval. So then what happened?

Iraq. Bush put his reputation on the line that Iraq had WMDs. He kicked the UN out of Iraq (who were there to LOOK for WMDs) and then prepared to invade. This was somewhat transparent to the public. Many asked, “why is he rushing the UN out?” “Why is he so unwilling to wait?” He showed us images of tanker trucks, the kind that deliver your gas to Circle K, and called them “mobile weapons labs.” Many didn’t buy it, he insisted it was correct. Bush staked his reputation, his credibility, and everything on Iraq having WMDs. Still, the UN would not back down. And the public wanted more proof.

Instead of proof, we got fear tactics. Fox news began to show a “nightmare scenario” (later disproven) where Iraq could connect two scud missile engines together to extend their range long enough to “possibly” hit New York. Many experts balked at the idea, calling it fear mongering and as unlikely as being hit by a giant meteor. While FOX cleverly did not claim it “would happen”, rather they claimed there was a “possibility” and then talked about it NONSTOP as if it was a likely scenario.

The FOX watching public was whipped into a frenzy of fear and paranoia. They began to call the war doubters “traitors”, “cowards”, and “liberals” for disagreeing with the President’s assessments. Note: These are the same people who would later say “hindsight is 20/20, everybody was for the war.” Bush tried to tie Al Qaida on Saddam Hussein.

He neglected to tell us that Donald Rumself had more association with Saddam Hussein than Bin Laden did( Rumsfeld actually shook hands with him during the 1980s). How did Bin Laden and Hussein get along? Let’s just say that Saddam Hussein did not run a “proper” Muslim government, according to extremists. He was too in love with himself (as evidenced by the statues everywhere) and he put Allah second. Bin Laden actually called Saddam Hussein an “infidel.” Something that would likely have meant his execution were he to step foot on Iraqi soil. This is all information that was readily available on the news, and was not something that came out later.

Anyway, what cinched the deal was Bush’s spokesman told us on that fateful day that Iraq had WMDs that would be ready to launch in 45 minutes. The next news bite was news of our attack. Now wait a second, ready to launch in 45 minutes? So, ready to launch WHERE? No further information was given. The public was expected to “fill in the blank.” And this was one of the most grand deceptions in the history of our country.

What we were “supposed” to think in our heads was that missiles were on their way to New York for a “second Al Quaida” strike, and we were well within our right to “defend ourselves.” As it turns out, this was complete and utter horse shit.

Later memos would come out documenting communication between George Bush that indicated that “intelligence was being fixed to make the case for war.”

After the invasion of Iraq, Bush’s worldwide goodwill, and approval rating began to plummet. It got worse as the years wore on, and no WMDs were found. Make no mistake, the President put everything on the line that there were WMDs. There is no room for excuses on this. He made the case, he took full responsibility if he was wrong. This was no media “vendetta” carried out. He let us all down, and made us look like liars the world over. Our credibility as a nation was damaged.

After Iraq, one disaster seemed to follow another. The war stretched into overtime, what was sold to us as a “shock and awe” became a lengthy occupation. Apologists went into damage control, telling us “you don’t just cut and run”, “finish the job” when confronted with their failed claims.

Then he started to twist the knife. The PATRIOT act was formed, to “protect us from terror”, to this date, I don’t know of a single terrorist that was captured because of this bill. Please correct me if there is documentation proving otherwise.

Now, clever Republicans are quick to point out that The Patriot Act had Democrat signatures on it. What they will not tell you is that troop armor, and troop funding were attached to the Patriot Act. Any Democrat that dissented had his patriotism questioned. “Why do you hate our troops” became a common response to any criticism of the war. Who said anything about troops? I and many others just thought our President at the time, was a filthy liar. So yeah, any Democrat who voted for the Patriot Act, did so out of nothing short of blackmail. IF they didn’t they were not willing to fund our troop armor in time of war. It’s really fucked up, but this shit happened. It’s all documented. If confronted on this information, Republicans will call names, question your patriotism, and do ANYTHING but answer the charges. They cannot admit that their party lied to them, so they perpetuate the lie, in the hopes that if perpetuated long enough, it will become true. But that is not how it works.

There are so many other ways in which Bush failed us, this was just the start of his decline. The Patriot act took away our privacy and nearly took away our freedom, and failed to deliver on its promise. The President used our troops as an argument piece, criticism of the war was redirected to the troops. “Why do you have a problem with our troops?” Republican sympathizers followed suite.

There was a variety of other bad decisions by Bush, but this is the mess that started it all. A lackluster response to Katrina, squandering our budget surplus, and other failures.

Years later, they tell us, “we were all for the war and hindsight is 20/20.” “Bush did what he had to.” “Bush was a victim of 9/11.” Years later, they are still full of shit.

Obama’s salary

So I was watching CNN today, and they were talking about how Obama would put a salary freeze on his cabinet, which is a sign of good faith — that they aren’t getting kickbacks. And what must’ve been the dumbest reporter I’ve ever seen in front of a camera, ask him “is Obama going to lower his salary?” First of all, what part of “freeze” did you not understand? Did he say he was cutting his cabinet’s salary? No, he said he was going to freeze it from raises.

Then she blurted out something like “he should lead by example, he needs to lead by example!” Again I’ve never seen a reporter that took my breath away with the sheer stupidity of their questions. They weren’t even questions, they were demands. First of all, who the hell are you to demand anything?  I guess anyone can be a reporter nowadays.  Here’s a newsflash, your job is to ask questions and write down the answers, not make demands. If you want to make demands, become  a lobbyist or grab a picket sign and walk in circles like everyone else does.  This isn’t a venue for you to get your 10 seconds of fame by bullying the President’s staff.

What really pisses me off, is that Obama is going out of his way to be open, and what passes today for reporters not only don’t appreciate it, they are exploiting it for ratings. Asking him the stupidest questions imaginable and then throwing a hissy fit when they don’t get the answer they want.  “Hey you said ‘X’, that means you should do ‘Y’ because I said so. No, he is only required to do ‘X’, not the ‘Y’ that you pulled out of your ass so you could make a name for yourself.

The last stupid reporter had the second most idiotic question I’ve ever heard. When Obama came back from his Presidential intelligence briefing, this dumb ass asked what he learned at said “Presidential” intelligence briefing. What, do they not teach the concept of national security in journalism school?

If I were the boss of either of those two, I’d fire them on the spot for incompetence.

Scientific Theory vs Conspiracy Theory

In this post I’m going to explore the difference between scientific theories and conspiracy theories.  The key difference between them is in the approach used to reach a conclusion. Scientists will start with facts, and try to find a theory that fits the facts. Conspiracy theorists will start with a theory, and try to find facts that fit the theory; ignoring facts that do not. That is the primary difference between scientific theory, and conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theorist example:

Start with a theory, “Obama doesn’t deserve to be President.”

Try to find facts that fit this theory:

“He won’t show his birth certificate.”
It’s been posted to his website for months.
“Ok, well it’s fake, it doesn’t have a raised seal.”
It’s a 2 dimensional computer image, of course it doesn’t have a raised seal.
“Well why not show the original?”
The original was photographed from a variety of different angles at factcheck.org, answering every claim against it.
“Well it doesn’t matter because he’s probably Indonesian because he lived there for a few years.”
Not according to our constitution he’s not.
“Well, he’s probably a British citizen because his dad was one.”
Not according to our constitution he’s not.
“Well, someone who claims to be a long lost relative of his said he was born in Kenya.”
You’re going to believe that but you won’t believe the State of Hawaii?

…

It’s clear what’s happening is they have started with a theory, and are trying ot make facts fit the theory.  In this case the theory is, “Obama does not deserve to be President.”

That is the exact opposite of the approach that is taken by science.  You start with facts, and then derive a theory.  And if the theorists were inclined to belittle science, they should be gently reminded that on average we get to live 50 years longer because of science.  To say nothing else, the computer you’re reading this on exists because of the way scientists handle their business.

So what is the point of this post?  Arguing with conspiracy theorists is a futile endeavor.  Whether they are the “9/11 inside job” types, the “vapor trails are for mind control”, or “Obama is a Kenyan/Indonesian/British man” variety.  You can’t trust their conclusions because they do not follow the scientific method.  Pointing out facts that contradict their theories doesn’t work either, because their system allows them to discard facts that do not fit the theory.

Facts that don’t fit the theory are part of the “conspiracy.”

The commies are coming! The commies are coming!

Just when you thought the campaign couldn’t regress anymore than it has, it looks like it’s back to 1950s election tactics.

Essentially, what John McCain and Sarah Palin are implying, is that Democrats are basically communists.

To think, that we have had so many communist Presidents in our history!  I am simply terrified that we had so many Democrat/Commie Presidents!  How did that happen?  How did we go through decades of commie Presidents without the inevitable communist conversion.   It must be a miracle!

Either that, or it’s complete nonsense.  You can actually want to encourage equality and still be a capitalist.  I know it sounds crazy, but it’s true.  This is known as “Progressive.”  The problem lies when Republican take the underlying principles of Progressism and call it communism.  Well, they call it “socialism”, but everyone knows that socialism is one step from communism, so that’s basically what they’re getting at.  Communism.  In America.  No, this actually doesn’t happen. When Bill Clinton was in office, Bill Gates was richer than he is now.  How could that have happened in communism?  It could not.  And why is Bill Gates poorer under the so called “free market” people.   I have no idea.  But I’m making a damn good point here.

You’ll likely see Republicans make this connection between Progressives, Socialists, and Communists.  But it’s flawed.  That kind of association logic is misleading.  Using the very same idea, you can essentially call Republicans Fascists because they so frequently make appeals to patriotism.  Patriotism, is essentially, Nationalism.  And Nationalism is a very large component of Fascism.  Look it up.  I consider myself to be very patriotic by the way, and believe it or not I served (voluntarily) in the US Navy for 5 years *before* serving in the military had anything to do with Sept 11th.

So yeah.  Basically if Progressives are creeping Socialists, then Patriots are creeping Fascists.  It’s the very same logic.  You can’t have one point without the other. But let’s define Socialism for a moment.  Socialism is where the government controls a lot of things.  It’s not communism, people still own their own property and the state is still primarily there to protect you and not keep you in a sort of beehive like existence.  In fact, many of our staunchest allies in Europe over the last 100 years are in fact socialists.  Great Britain has been in the past, France I think currently is (meh), and so on and so forth.  Basically socialism means big government.  But in the real sense, not in the exagerrated sense that Republicans use.  Republicans call a 3% tax increase on the wealthy “big government.”  They have no idea what big government is.  But, you get the point, Democrats are not communists, and are not socialists.  They are progressives.  Progressives are capitalists with a soul.  How is that for an explanation?  I love it.  Capitalists with a soul.

Speaking of Commies, one of my principle reasons for supporting Barack Obama is the fact that he has been paying attention to the threat that China poses to our future.  I have written about this before, but again I believe that China has a very sinister formidable plan to displace us as world superpower.  They will of course never admit it, but there is more evidence than you can shake a stick at.  And from what I saw on Lou Dobbs last night, Government analysts are saying the same thing.  You don’t have to be a political activist to see it.   Everytime you turn around they are stealing more technology from us.  The key difference between our military capabilities is technology.  They have the numbers, that’s a given.  So why are we sitting around while they play “catchup”, by stealing technology and funneling their immense profits into their military?  I’m not advocated war, heavens no.  There’s a lot of things we can do, that will ironically go very far toward preventing war in the future.  One thing that prevents war is strength, as we found out during the Cold War.  So basically what we want to do is get back up on our feet, and start asserting ourselves again.  Renegotiating our trade is a good start.  Why give China “most favored nation” trading status, when all they’ve given us in return is “most spied on nation” status?

Obama has spoken about the China threat on numerous occasions.  I honestly don’t think McCain is paying attention.  Like Bush, he’s far too riled up about petty dictators in the Middle East, who couldn’t scratch us if they tried.  And he’s completely ignoring the worlds super power runner-up.

We have borrowed billions of dollars from China to fund wars like Iraq, which never needed to happen.  They sell their products to us, and virtually refuse to buy ours.  We have to teach them how to make anything we sell there, before we can sell it there.  That, to me, is simply absurd.

McCain, being the Republican and corporate sponsored candidate that he is, will not be able to effectively combat this threat.  Not that he’s shown any interest in doing so anyway, but even if he wanted to, the same corporations that donated to his campaign are going to tell him to butt-out about issues with China.  As lopsided and stupid as our trade is with China, corporations defend it because cheap labor gives them higher profit margins.  It is our unregulated greed that caused the financial crisis, and it will be our unregulated greed that allows China to catch up and possibly surpass us someday.

Obama plans to actually compete with China, as opposed to allowing them to quietly walk all over us.  Obama is an observant man, and that is good.  You see, you shouldn’t have to teach a country how to make a product in order to sell it there.  That is something that no other nation that we trade with (that I’m aware of) requires.  It’s greedy, selfish, and only serves to give China the technological catchup that they need but haven’t earned through invention and personal freedom.

Obama’s plan goes so much deeper than what I’m writing here.  But I’ll shed a little light.  He’s dedicated to improving our education, and has said that it is a “national security issue.”  We’re at the point where we can’t just say “parents can send their kids to private school if they want to” while our education system continue to be substandard around the world.  Also, his plan plan for alternative energy both helps to eventually free us from a dwindling resource, and gives us something to start selling again.

We used to sell stuff to other countries, I know it sounds crazy.  But we used to have an economy that didn’t primarily involve selling hamburgers to each other.  In the past, even if you weren’t interested in education, you could get a decent job at a factory, assuming you were willing to work hard.  And you could even earn a decent living.  But now, your choices are “fast food, telemarketing, fast food, and Walmart.”  But hey, wanting better jobs is “creeping socialism.”

So there’s your take on “commies” for the day.  I hope you’ve enjoyed it.

Joe the plumber, revisited

Fact:  John McCain brought Joe Whoever into the national spotlight.

Don’t believe me?  McCain coined the term “Joe the plumber”, it was not in existence until McCain used it.  He was just a random guy who asked questions at an Obama neighborhood rally.  McCain called the guy after he saw him on TV and then McCain quite literally, made this guy into a martyr.

He used him over, and over, and over again for his arguments in the final presidential debate.  Is there anyone out there who can tell me that this would not draw attention to the man?  I honestly had not heard of him until McCain brought him up. I mean when he was at the Obama rally, he was a regular guy.  After McCain got ahold of him, he was “Joe the plumber, proof that Obama is taxing middle class plumbers who make $250,000 a year.”

McCain used the guy as a campaign prop.  And then he had the nerve to blame Obama when reporters showed up in the guys yard.  I think his memory must be deteriorating with age.  He doesn’t realize that he’s the one that put the spotlight on the guy.  And apparently, neither do Republican pundits who think we’re stupid enough to believe otherwise.

Thank God for video cameras.  No need to believe me, watch the videos.  Watch the video of the initial interaction with Obama, watch the debate three.  There is simply no wiggle room for McCain here.  Unlike the dubious Ayers mud pies, it’s all on film for the world to see.  The term “Joe the Plumber”, is in fact a McCain invention.  The guy’s name is not “Joe the plumber”, nor did he identify himself as “Joe the plumber.”  Until McCain transformed him into a martyr for his campaign, he was just a person asking a question at an Obama rally.

Fact:  Joe Whoever wandered into an Obama rally in his neighborhood, Obama didn’t go to his house.

Another simple lie from McCain, who has abandoned all dignity that he used to have.  Like many have said, I miss the McCain of 2000, but I fear he is no longer with us.

Fact:  Joe Whoever misrepresented himself in his question to Obama.

Here is the quote that peaked McCain’s interest:

“I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year. Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?”

The media apparently “had no right” to verify this.  I mean they should just take everything at face value. Pointing out facts is “mean.”

Fact:  Joe the plumber would see a tax break under Obama.

The truth is undeniable.  And the media are “mean” for pointing it out.

If Joe the businessman were making $600,000 a year, he would start to fall into Obama’s tax plan.  Why do I say that?  Well if it really is a business it will have a few employees.  Let’s say 5, let’s say that the boss makes 70k, and the 4 underlings make 45k a year.  That’s the first time he’ll have to pay that new tax bracket.

Estimated employee salaries: $250,000.

Estimated Operating expenses: $100,000 (I coudl be way off here, it could be much higher, giving a larger tax break).

All of these things are tax deductable.  $350,000 worth of deductions to be exact.

So here’s the deal.  If Joe the businessman was making $600,000 a year he would finally fall into Obama’s tax bracket of an additional 3% in taxes.  The horror!  If my hypothetical business was making $600,000 a year, I would be fine with paying the additional 3%.

I think I know why Republicans shy away from the issues, they can’t compete in them.

Now… can we hear more about your plan for the economy McCain?  You do have one, right?  I mean you aren’t just side tracking us with this soap opera stuff to cover for a lack of a plan.  Right?

Huckabee’s new show

I watched his pilot episode (not the more recent ones).  The guy has to be watching a teleprompter.  His eyes do funny things when he looks into the camera and he kind of pauses awkwardly while “staring at the audience.”

Evidence:  I saw a “Democrat student” ask him a question, and he went into a full fledged speech, that appeared to be hand crafted specifically to answer her question.  And what is even more bizarre is he knew she was a Democrat, because he said “You’re a Democrat right?” as he called on her.  How would he know this?  Not only that, her question had the most robotic and emotionless tone.  It was as if she had already said it and was just repeating it again for the show.

The question was “Do you feel it is right to question Obama’s faith?” or something like that.  Huckabee first claimed he didn’t think it was right, and then slowly twisted the point into “I deserve to know where their convictions lie” or something like that.  So he basically did a big circle.  But regardless of the answer, it was simply unnatural the depth with which he went to answer a simple question.

Either he practices talking points to a precision that make it appear as if he’s reading off a teleprompter, or (more likely) the questions are screened and planned ahead of time, so he can’t get stumped or called out.

This doesn’t surprise me of FOX news.  One of the things I’ve said is that they make mock interviews with people that are really just Obama bashing sessions.  While pretending the person is some kind of analyst.  I’ve seen real analysts on CNN.  They are objective to the point of frustrating you.  They don’t budge one inch on telling you what their feelings are, they just explain the data and the science behind it.  On FOX the other day as I was flipping through channels,and this “analyst” guy was talking about Obama’s campaign and McCain’s.  At one point he mentioned he got “robo-calls” from Sarah Palin, and said something about how he didn’t mind because they were “classy calls from a classy person” or something like that.  It was awkward and did not flow with the conversation at all.

As I’ve already said in other posts, they call reporters (their own reporters mind you) in remote towns and “interview them”, and the interview is just a huge bash fest against Obama and/or stump for McCain.  It’s really dumb.

The entire channel is dishonest and their branding of “fair and balanced” has got to be a sarcastic joke.  They can’t really be serious.  It’s like the producers said, “what’s the most hilarious thing we can call ourselves that we can all laugh at but no one else will get it.”  “I know!  ‘Fair and balanced’, bwahahahaha!”

It’s like the modern day “Tokyo Rose” of news shows.

It’s nothing to worry over though.  This election is about independents.  FOX caters to the hard core right.  They may make their own reality as they go, but the Independents don’t seem to be buying into it.