It is official -- God help me.

New slogan: "I cared enough to show up."

Nice. I may use that . . .

What kinds of materials (if any) do you have to prepare for your campaign?

None. I am not going to bother with posters or lawn signs. The article in the paper and the meet-and-greet before the primary will have to do.

You could always use social media tools like Facebook and Twitter (not that I'm a user of either) to spread the word.

Breaking legs and strong arming always works just ask the Kennedy's

The mafia friends can help here again.


http://www.redstate.com/mikehurst41/2010/02/19/the-mafia-style-strong-arm-tactics-of-the-obama-white-house/

"The Obama administration has brought “Chicago-style” politics to Washington. Their strong arm tactics are deeply rooted in organized crime. I’m not saying that President Obama is a mafia “don” but he has close associates who are obviously “made” men. And they’re not trying too hard to hide it. "

huhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

The fact that you get your information from sites like Red State explains a lot.

it was just a random google search i don't know what that site is

Sheesh, agent. Always research your sources!

i'm only researching searching for my future used car subaru purchase that i want to make and any house renovations im doing.

ive dumbed down to wanting the 2008 subaru impreza sport 2.5i manual tran sedan or hatchback. 170 ho and 170 foot pounds torque should satisfy this aging driver. The wrx would have been too much and getting tickets and such.

I did actually read that article. It is a perfect example of what is wrong with contemporary media. It is nothing more than a slur, filled with innuendo and no documentation whatsoever for its assertions. (And no specific assertions, at that!) Yet it is the kind of thing that people -- not just Agent -- will find on the internet and cite as an example to prove their point. Sturgeon's Law applies to the internet with even greater force than it does to anything else in life: "90% of everything is crud."

and it works both ways to people opposite views using all this stuff on the internet

The Internet as a source is perfectly valid if you are getting your information from a reputable site. The problem with the Internet is that anyone can publish material with relative ease. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't take that much to get published in printed media either, but there are more checks in place (publishers, editors, investors and other stakeholders) with printed media. Those checks should catch or at least question debatable or invalid data and assertions. It is too easy on the Internet to be bold and brash and not have to worry about taking ownership for one's statements.

and it will only get worse i think

Unfortunately, the anonymity that the internet provides is no longer necessary. Journalism is dead. Stick a fork in iit. All that it is is stenography. Any political figure or supposed "expert" gets interviewed and the "reporter" or other news figure simply copies it down verbatim. The veracity of the statements made is irrelevant to the reporter. Even if a statement is clearly and demonstrably false -- and and easily be proven so -- it is rarely questioned. All that they do is interview someone from the opposing side of an issue for "balance" (and never question anything that person says, either.) The purpose of the fourth estate is supposedly to hold government accountable, but there are blessedly few people doing it. You have many people attacking government and attacking political figures, but with no facts of their own to back up what they say. The more "mainstream" the media is, the less that anyone seriously questions any of the lies that are being propogated. And they general public buys the lies.

I wouldn't say that is true of all journalists and all newspapers. However, many do follow the philosophy that journalism should merely report the facts and not challenge or insert commentary that might colour the opinion of readers.

I wasn't just referring to newspapers, though. In fact, I didn't even really have them in mind. I was thinking of things like books and scientific journals, which often involves some kind of peer review.

I think what aggravates me the most about "news" reporting is that the reporter of the news uses the media as a platform to espouse his personal views. It should not be the norm where the reporter's opinions are used to provide "balance" in a news story. The reporter should provide balance by doing some research (I know that involves the distasteful effort of work). It's interesting how the knowledge gained from research used to produce reporters who could do the best interviews.

That is the gist of it. People are more than willing to espouse opinions on the news, but those who do are often no better than their sources in that they are simply spouting unfounded opinion. Facts are facts, and anyone in any media should take the responsibility to do the research on what he or she says -- and on what he or she is being told by anyone else. There are sites like Politifact that specialize in analyzing what politicians say compared to the facts, but most people never go near sites like that. They simply read/listen/watch the news of their choice and accept that what they are being told is true. When opposing sides of an issue are being presented, they simply accept the position that already matches their own, since no one on the news is questioning what is being said -- and if for some reason someone does question the point of view with which they agree, they simply dismiss it as "bias." Opinions are indeed founded in bias, but facts iz facts.

Having never been involved in journalism, I'm at a disadvantage as to explain why this problem occurs, but I imagine it is partly to do with deadlines. I suspect people are so concerned with being the first one out of the gate with a story that integrity checks go out the window. I know how long it takes to verify data in even the most mundane of reports and I cannot see how journalists can maintain any level of quality assurance when they are working to daily, even hourly deadlines. It is for that very reason that I have always taken what I have read and seen on the news with a heavy grain of salt.

Well, in a sense you are correct, because it is all a part of our so-called "24 hour news cyle." As we have been more and more bombarded with "up-to-the-minute coverage," that coverage has become less and less accurate. Look at the early reporting on the Tuscon tragedy. Many networks reported that Gabrielle Giffords was dead -- among countless other inaccuracies.

i give up on watching or reading the news altogether - life's too short and too many things to do

Well, you do need to stay informed, but nowadays that requires time and effort.

And a dose of common sense.

In addition to the need to meet a news cycle, I think there is a good deal of pressure to play to the perceived audience. This effects how a newsworthy story is covered as well as whether it is even considered to be newsworthy. For this reason an informed citizen has to force himself to watch (read) the media which may make him a little uncomfortable.

Speaking of which, the "Meet the Candidates" event is tonight. We will see if I am either common or display any sense.