Sarah Palin’s “Target” List: Incited Murder, or Unfortunate Coincidence?

Last March, I wrote here expressing my alarm over ex-Governor (and currently holding no elected office) Sarah Palin, and her publishing of a list targeting public officials who were supporters of health care reform (see ” Domestic Terrorism: Sarah Palin Puts Democrats in the Crosshairs, Tells People to “Reload”.)

The worst thing imaginable has happened. One of those people on Palin's list – Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D - AZ) – was shot in the head yesterday while making a public appearance. While she is still alive and in intensive care, others were not so lucky. Six people were also killed, including a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl, and 14 others were wounded. The “alleged” shooter – you know, the guy who had the gun and was wrestled to the ground, nothing “alleged: about that – is in custody.

As of this writing, the motivation for the shooting remains unclear. But Sarah Palin’s earlier call to arms mentioning Giffords’ name along with many others, is still is fresh in the minds of many. I believed then and I believe now that her anti-health reform rhetoric was dangerous and could be perceived as a literal call to action by those with a gun looking for an excuse to use it. If there does appear there was a connection with Palin’s call to action and this shooting, then I think there should be some way that she should be charged for something, like threatening elected officials or conspiracy to commit murder. It is simply not excusable to let anyone encourage others to shoot and/or kill in the name of their personal beliefs without paying the consequences if someone takes them up on their suggestion.

If it turns out that there was no connection with Palin’s words and the shooting and this is all a horrible and unfortunate coincidence, let this be a lesson to Palin and other big talkers who incite and rile up people for their own causes or political gains: learn to keep your mouth shut and your threats to yourself. (And for voters: don’t support or vote for people who stoop to this type of rhetoric.)

All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

WikiLeaks: Whistleblower – or Terrorist?

WikiLeaks, who recently released a tsunami of classified documents, now finds itself running for cover as it a web host shut them down and even a Swiss bank appears to have frozen WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s legal defense fund. WikiLeaks has found others to help them keep the classified information out there by the use of mirror sites.

Is this a case of a whistleblower being persecuted – or a case of a terrorist being shut off from those tools he uses to inflict harm on others? Newspapers in the past have covered controversial stories that involve classified information. The difference with the news media is that they don’t encourage the theft of classified documents in order to further their stories. In the case of WikiLeaks, it seems that Assange gets his information from documents that are not obtained legally. It seems that Assange has no concern for the fall out to military forces or the people that could be harmed by the release of government secrets.

While I would love to have a government that is completely transparent, I also live in a real world where sometimes people don’t have – or need - to know every single detail of what their government, and key elected or appointed officials, are doing

It’s important to note that Assange is also wanted to Sweden for alleged sex crimes and, as a result, has been in hiding. For someone who expects he can expose government confidential documents to make government officials look bad, as of this writing he hasn’t himself been able to step up to face the accusations being made against him. According to Time.com: "He has also said he believes that the sex-crime accusations — which, media reports in Sweden suggest, are not violent in nature — are politically motivated." The whole mess is complicated, to be sure. In my opinion, Assange is the one who looks guilty of politically motivated attacks. Let’s not forget his stunt when, in 2008 WikiLeaks posted emails that were obtained by hacking into Sarah Palin’s email account. Despite the fact that I have a low opinion of Palin, I thought that it was pretty low for WikiLeaks to publish her private email information. Now really, what value did that have? That should have been the first indication that Assange’s motives were not a squeaky clean as he may want others to think.

Right now, I’m of the opinion that Assange is more terrorist than whistleblower, more troublemaker than problem solver. Should WikiLeaks be shut down? If it is publishing documents obtained illegally and/or through espionage, yes WikiLeaks should be shut down. If Assange can uncover information using legal or ethical methods, then sure, I think he should be allowed to post whatever he wants. Somehow, I don’t think he has the ability to do the latter.

All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.

Black Friday: The Real Meaning of Thanksgiving?

Photo ©frequentcritic.blogspot.com

It’s the one day that some people look forward to all year: Black Friday. It’s is not a day of mourning, it’s a day for shopping. Black Friday is the day after Thanksgiving, but got the name Black Friday because it signals the official start of the Christmas shopping season. The heavy shopping day puts many retailers “in the black” which means they are turning a profit. (“In the black” is a old phase which goes back to the days of manual financial ledgers where losses were written in red ink and profits in black ink.) Many retailers offer big sales/discounts on coveted items (like TVs or other electronics) to draw shoppers into the store. While Black Friday puts many retailers in a good place financially, it puts many consumers in deep debt.

Sadly, the spirit of the Thanksgiving holiday gets lost in the shopping frenzy. While many families still get together for a nice turkey dinner, just as many are using the day to comb through the ads to find the best deals. Quite a few people spend part of Thanksgiving standing in line, waiting for a store to open its doors in the wee hours, letting in the throngs to shop until they drop. Some stores even opened up on Thanksgiving last year. It’s pathetic that some people spend more time planning what they are going to buy than spend time on those things for which they should be thankful. Let’s not forget that because so many people are out shopping, the crowds are large, the lines are long, and tempers can be short. It’s common to hear news stories of customer vs. customer or customer vs. store clerk altercations on that shopping day. In my opinion, a person must be desperate to save a few dollars to go out and shop on a day like that.

Me? I will be staying away from the stores that day, maybe even that weekend. Instead, I will be spending my weekend being thankful for family and friends – because family and friends are far more important than things.


All Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information,The Frequent Critic, here.

Negative Political Ads: Working For, and Against, a Candidate

It’s that time of year – election time – when things can get ugly. The negative political ads on television and the negative political phone calls are flooding out in full force. It seems everyone complains about them, but the big question is, do they work? The answer is yes, but not always in the manner in which the advertiser wants.

In an informal survey of friends, family, and casual conversation with people I encounter in any given day, I find that many people do listen to negative ads and at least make an attempt to process whether the claims are true or false. If the person who hears the ad doesn’t like the candidate at which the negative ad is pointed, it can cement their opinion and lock in their vote for the candidate running the ad. The gain for the candidate running the ad is zero because the person was going to vote for them anyway. If the person was going to vote for the other candidate – the one at which the ad is pointed - the voter often becomes defensive of their candidate and it can lock in their vote for their candidate, a gain of zero for the candidate running the ad.

But, the person who is on the fence can go either way, and a lot of it depends on the tone or the subject of the ad. If the ad brings out any claim of impropriety in the person’s personal or business dealings (for example, claims the candidate is a tax cheat, or claims that the person has lawsuits filed against him/her), those ads often swing voters to the candidate who is running the negative ad. Pointing at an incumbent’s past record is less effective, though, because if a person had voted for that person in the past, they will likely view this as an attack on their own past choices. No one likes to think they made a bad decision, even the voter.

When both parties run negative ads, it can become sheer comedy. Frequently I see TV ads for opposing candidates run back to back, pointing at each other with negative accusations. In those cases, people only get more confused and likely don’t want to vote for either candidate, canceling out the effect of the ad.

The web site PolitiFact.com has the Truth- O-Meter which attempts to sort through some of the accusations and rates them from true, through false, to “pants on fire”, the latter highlighting the biggest lies. It’s an invaluable tool when trying to determine if the ad has merit.

The bottom line – negative ads really don’t buy a candidate many votes. Many times it serves only to entrench voters in their choices, and risks alienating voters from the whole voting process. If a candidate has to rely on slinging mud to win voters, I believe this means they don’t have much substance of their own. While I know these ads will never go away, I can only wish that more candidates would choose not to take that route. A candidate should be selling me what he or she CAN do, not what their opponent CAN’T do, or what their opponent has done. It would be nice if the “truth-o-meter” could be superimposed on the ad while it runs, but I know that will never happen. Voters must take the time to educate themselves on the issue, and the PolitiFact Truth- O-Meter is a wonderful tool (available only for a select group of states). I encourage all to use it – get the facts before acting on negative spin!


Example: Ad Attacking Lee Fisher is “Half True”

All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

Freedom of Speech/Religion Means Freedom to Make Bad Choices

I’m a little tired of hearing all the media coverage about the a pastor of a tiny church who wants to have a Qur’an (Koran) burning and the Imam who wants to build a mosque/community center near New York City’s 9/11 ground zero.

The media is making big stories out of both issues, and are likely the ones fanning the flames. Yes, the media has the freedom to cover these stories as they see fit, but, in the case of the Qur’an burning pastor, the media has now given it so much exposure that the event may endanger Americans by inciting Muslim radicals. The issue with the mosque being built near the site of the 9/11 terror attack is really a local issue that should have been resolved locally, but the media has made it a national issue.

As the media has already fanned the flames of two small “brush” fires and now have created a forest fire, the only issue left now is what freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, means.

The pastor is clearly within his right to burn whatever he wants to burn – well, as long as where he burns it, an open fire is allowed. Is it a smart thing to burn the Qur’an in protest? NO. It is a senseless act that does nothing but promote religious intolerance. How would the pastor feel if a rabbi decided to burn the New Testament of the Bible? People in the United States have the right to choose their faith (or not follow any religion) and worship without government intervention. The Qur’an has every right to be published and read in the United States, just as the Bible or any other book for that matter, religious or not.

The Imam wanting to build his mosque in New York near the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks is also within his right to do so. But, considering the sentiment of many in the city who were directly affected by the terrorist attacks, the place the Imam has chosen may not be the best. I do believe if the facility is done right, it could be a step in the healing process, but if it were me, I would not be building it in that location – it would not be worth the constant controversy.

The one lesson that we can learn here is that our freedoms sometimes come with a price. Our freedoms sometimes mean that we are free to make decisions that are not always in the best interests of those around us. It also means that the media is free to cover issues that frankly don’t affect most people. As people sometimes don’t always learn even after repeating mistakes, I don’t think these current situations mean the end to this lesson


All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.

eReaders and eBooks: I Think I’ll Pass

I love all the latest technology – who doesn’t? – but not everything is better when technology is added. Take eBooks for example. Something seems so cold and clinical about sitting down with an eReader and reading a book electronically. It seems more like work. On the other hand, reading a book the “old-fashioned” way – you know, opening the book and leafing through the pages as the story progresses – seems far more leisurely and relaxing. It’s also a lot of fun walking through a bookstore and just seeing what's out there. Sometimes the process of buying a book, for oneself or as a gift, can be fun and entertaining. One never knows what treasure one will find.

The biggest drawback to eBooks is not the delivery of the product from a reader’s eyes to their brains; it’s the PRICE of the eBook. Something that is delivery electronically – no paper, no binding, no handling, etc. – seems to have a fairly hefty price tag. While it may seem less than the cost of a hardcover book, it’s often far more than the cost of a paperback. If publishing an eBook has taken so many raw materials and labor out of the process, why are consumers not seeing a savings? I can’t imagine that the marketing of an eBook is any more costly than the marketing of a normal, print book.

eBooks also have another annoying trait – there doesn’t seem to be a way for a person to lend an eBook to a friend or family member to share. I also don’t have to pay extra to buy an eReader so I can read my printed book – or my print newspaper.

eReaders, and products like the iPad, seem to be products that were created to deliver content to consumers, so publishers of printed books, magazines, and newspapers can find yet another way to make money. The problem with newspapers and magazines is that they already let that horse out of the barn when many publications offered free content on the Internet. Of course, that was after they discovered that many people don’t want to pay extra for news and magazine content on the Internet. Some newspapers are trying to re-institute pay walls, and I say good luck with that.

I am not completely closed to the idea of eReaders and eBooks, but I do believe that they need to price the readers AND the books at much lower price points if they want the masses to accept them. With so many more options for entertainment these days, people can afford to walk away from books as entertainment if the delivery mechanism and content is too pricey.

So for now, I am going to pass on an eReader. Call me a romantic, but I like getting something tangible – you know, something that I can hold in my hands or lend to someone if I see fit – for my head earned money.

All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.

Please Please No More Febreze

I’m one of those people who can’t tolerate products that have heavy or overpowering fragrances, and there are a lot of people out there like me. While many cleaning products have some sort of fragrance, I can tolerate them if the fragrance isn’t heavy and doesn’t assault my nose. I do buy products that have no fragrance – laundry detergent for example – whenever possible.

Many people must either be obsessed with smelling like perfume, or too many people have smelly homes, because it seems as if Febreze is being added to everything. I am waiting for them to start adding Febreze to toothpaste and mouthwash so people can have nice fragrant breath. Don’t laugh, I bet if they could do it, they would. I go a little crazy when I see commercials with someone spraying Febreze all over their house, their car, their closets, etc. If a person has to spray so much Febreze all over everything, this should signal that they have some sort of cleanliness and odor problem that shouldn’t just be covered up.

Before you reach for that Febreze to spray all over your home, think first about what is causing the smell and address that issue only. Have a kid that is a slob? Don’t spray Febreze all over his/her room; make him/her clean it up. Have leftover cooking smells? Open a window – or keep a box of baking soda on your counter (it’s good for cleanups and some boxes are made with open panels to help absorb odors). Does your house smell of pets? Keep them off the furniture and have your upholstered furniture and rugs vacuumed often. If you don’t have a dog, don’t get one – dogs can really stink up a house. (Cats, not so much, as long as the litter box is kept clean). Do you smoke? There isn't enough Febreze to cover the smell of cigarette smoke, period. Don't smoke or don't smoke indoors. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

Here’s another clue – if you spray Febreze all over your house so someone can’t smell an odor, they will smell the Febreze and know you are just covering up something. Address the source of the odor because it really is obvious when someone sprays something to just cover it up – you’re not fooling anybody.

Before you buy that product with Febreze, think twice about why you feel you need it. If possible, buy products like Method cleaners which are gentle and non-toxic and have natural, light scents – or no scent at all.

So quit covering odors with perfumey chemicals – your nose will eventually thank you for it.











All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.