Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Average Joe In SmartMoney Magazine - UPDATED

SmartMoney Magazine October 2008A while back, I spent a great deal of time fighting with Toshiba and the Better Business Bureau about the lemon notebook computer I purchased from Toshiba. My blog posts caught the eye of a writer for The Wall Street Journal Magazine SmartMoney and he contacted me about interviewing for an article.

That article hits the newsstands in the October issue of SmartMoney magazine, with a picture of yours truly gracing the top half of page 82. Though the article only spends a half-paragraph (below) discussing my particular issue, the author did contact Toshiba on my behalf, which resulted in a brand new replacement computer being shipped to me with a full warranty. Can't complain about that.

UPDATE: You can now read the full article online.

From SmartMoney Magazine, October 2008:
My Pic in SmartMoneyThat would include folks like Jeff Cole, a 40-year-old Indianapolis resident who says complaining to the BBB just put him back at square one. He had griped that a perennially broken laptop from Toshiba needed to be replaced, not just fixed, but the bureau was satisfied after the company offered yet another repair. "I felt abandoned by the BBB," says Cole. Indeed, he got a new computer only after SmartMoney contacted Toshiba, which now says it "regrets" not resolving the case sooner. The BBB has regrets too and says it was "atypical" for it to close the case when it did.
So there you have it. Thanks to SmartMoney for playing their part in the replacement of my Toshiba computer. Grab your copy of the magazine at newsstands now.

Your comments?

Joe




Friday, September 5, 2008

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: LIAR!

MSNBCs Newest LiarI never thought I would find a more liberal "journalist" than Keith Olbermann (no link provided as I don't wish to promote his form of politics), but tonight, on the popular MSNBC program Countdown with Keith Olbermann, the show was guest hosted by Rachel Maddow (again, no link, again for the same reason). She has taken over from Keith Olbermann in my mind as the most liberal among the mainstream media's flunkies.

Tonight, after calling many of the remarks during John McCain's acceptance speech Thursday evening "lies" -- and blatantly calling Senator McCain a "liar" -- she turned the tables on Governor Sarah Palin and attempted to call her a liar, as well. She opened the show with a comment that Governor Palin lied about selling the private jet that belonged to the state of Alaska on eBay. She let the teaser hang for nearly the entire hour before elaborating on her "definition" of the word lie.

Maddow claims that Governor Palin, in her speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night, claimed to have sold Alaska's private jet on eBay. She went on to claim that it was, in fact, untrue, because the jet did not sell on eBay. She explained that the Governor did indeed list the jet on eBay three times -- each with no sale -- before finally selling it to a broker of some sort for $2.1M. She then went on to say that Alaska paid $2.7M for the jet, and therefore Governor Palin's sale of the private jet actually cost Alaskan taxpayers money.

Now, let's get real and put aside the liberal smear politics for a moment, shall we? First, when was the last time you purchased any type of vehicle, used it for a while, and sold it at a profit? Used cars are rarely sold for a profit, and I would expect the same of airliners. The fact that Governor Palin recovered 78% of the purchase price of the unneeded private jet for the state of Alaska is significant. That's $2.1M added back into the state budget while at the same time eliminating fuel and maintenance costs on an airplane that was not needed.

Second, if you read the full text of Governor Palin's speech, or view the video (embedded below -- start watching at the 20 minute mark) of the speech, you will see that Governor Palin never claimed to have sold the jet on eBay. What the Governor said was:
While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor’s office that I didn’t believe our citizens should have to pay for.

That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.
[emphasis added]
That statement, in fact, is true. In fact, by the liberal Maddow's own admission, Governor Palin "put" the jet on eBay three times. More importantly, when the jet failed to sell on eBay, rather than give up, she found a buyer to take the unneeded property off the state books.

It is thoroughly disgusting that of the mainstream media, only one news network seems to be able to report without any bias slant -- to report the news, the truth, and the facts. The other news networks can't seem to report on the news without first spinning it to support their favored candidate. With so many Americans casting their votes based upon not what they know, but rather what they hear in the media, it should be a crime for the media to falsify their news reports in such a manner as to intentionally mislead the American people.



Direct video link.

Your comments?

Joe


Tuesday, August 19, 2008

My Thoughts on Saddleback and Why Obama Isn't Ready To Lead

Watching CNN's webcast of Senators McCain and Obama during the Saddleback Civil Forum, and a subsequent volley on Twitter with an inflamed Obama supporter, made me start thinking about what's really at stake in this Presidential election cycle. What really matters, and what is just hot air? I have been asked by some to elaborate on my thinking, and I will also share with you that Twitter volley I mentioned. This is likely to amuse some and enrage others, but I hope it will make just a few people give some serious thought to the issues that lie beneath the rhetoric.

Let me start by clearly explaining my position. I am a Christian Conservative, registered as a Republican. I do not vote the party line, and have actually voted for Democrat candidates in the past (not for President, but for other national, state, and local offices). I have always cast my vote for the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation. I believe firmly in the sanctity of human life and the institution of marriage (though I don't believe they should carry the weight that they do in deciding how to cast our vote in November). I believe that we pay too much for gasoline (regardless of what they pay elsewhere in the world) and that we pay too much in taxes. I believe that our political election process is the best in the country, but still far from perfect and in need of an overhaul. I believe that families should have the right to educate their children in whatever way they choose, so long as they meet a standard of education (which, unfortunately, dictates some form of testing for verification purposes). I do not believe that the constitution says anything about the separation of church and state (in fact, it dictates only that there will be no establishment of a national religion) and that if money is allowed to play such a major role in politics, so then should religion be allowed to assert it's influence. Our nation was established on Christian principles, and if we lose touch with those principles, we are no longer the nation that we once were. I believe that, as the longest enduring democracy in the world, we have a duty to foster freedom throughout the world. I don't believe we should do so by force, unless force is required to free a nation's people from an oppressive dictator who denies them of their freedoms and other basic rights. I believe that we must finish what we start, and that living with the freedoms that our nation provides requires from each of us a price to be paid in defense of that freedom.

All of that being said, I will now elaborate.

I am firmly pro-life. I believe that life begins the instant that fertilization occurs. At that point, it is not up to us to determine whether a person should be given a chance to live or not. At Saddleback, Senator Obama spoke of the need to find a way to reduce unwanted pregnancies. He spoke of this as if it is more important than protecting the live of unwanted babies. I find it very difficult to place a higher value on the lifestyle of someone who has become pregnant by accident than on the value of that life she carries inside her. It is my belief that we can reduce both unwanted pregnancies and abortions by taking responsibility for our actions and not getting pregnant in the first place. It's a simple task, really. Don't commit the act if you aren't prepared to live with all possible consequences, including unwanted pregnancy, and to deal with them in a manner that causes no harm to anyone of any age, including the unborn. There will always be a number of women who become pregnant because they are victimized in one or another. These women are not personally responsible for committing the act that created the unwanted pregnancy, and shouldn't be forced to suffer the consequences. The unborn baby is also not personally responsible for committing the act that created the unwanted pregnancy, and shouldn't be forced to suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, people are victimized in hundreds of ways every day and must suffer the consequences. If you burn down my home, I must suffer the consequences (and so might you, if you are caught). If shot in a drive -by shooting, I must suffer the consequences. If faced with the unwanted pregnancy of a loved one, regardless of how it was created, I must suffer the consequences. That's just a fact of life, and it's something we should learn to live with and quit expecting a quick fix to solve the problem for us. I suggest adoption be considered as an alternative to abortion.

Though being firmly pro-life, I do not believe that abortion should be such a hot topic in choosing our next President. Our system of government prevents the President from taking any personal action that would either make abortion legal or illegal on his own. He must work with the 535 members of Congress to pass such legislation, and frankly, it's never going to happen. Let's face it, as long as our political system is based upon constantly running for the next election, we're never going to see 536 people agree on such a hot topic as abortion. Granted, the President can nominate his pro-life or pro-choice candidates to the Supreme Court, but they, too, must be confirmed by the 100-member Senate before being seated on the bench. Though possible, it is not likely that we would see an all-liberal or all-conservative Supreme Court. And let's be honest, liberals really don't have much to worry about from a Conservative bench. The Conservatives are historically strict constitutionalists and less likely to legislate from the bench than are liberal justices, and therefore less likely to write a sweeping decision outlawing abortion. So while the topic of abortion is of critical importance when selecting our Senators and Representatives, it's nothing but hot air in the Presidential debate.

Which brings me to the topic of marriage. I believe that marriage was established by God (we only created the ceremony and legal documentation) as the union of one man (originally Adam) and one woman (originally Eve), and that we do not have the authority as God's creation to modify this institution. God's first commandment to the first couple was to "be fruitful and multiply." As that is only possible with the involvement of a man and a woman, I do not feel that there is any need for further debate on this topic. Adam and Eve can be fruitful and multiply, Adam and Steve can only multiple with a pen and paper, or calculator, or some other such instrument that does not result in the continuation of the species.

Again, I do not believe that marriage should be such a hot topic in choosing our next President, and again for the same reasons as I stated earlier on abortion. Should a rogue Judicial Branch decide that same-gender marriage should be legal, we as a nation have the tools at our disposal to rise up and take action. The legislative process provides for us to petition each other for the passing of a law to eliminate the legalization of same-gender marriage. Our 535 representatives -- whom we can choose or unchoose with our votes -- can pass such legislation to overturn any such Supreme Court decision. Utopia, right? Maybe, but I believe that if we focus our efforts on what really matters and what can best be affected by whom, then maybe it isn't so unrealistic to expect such supposedly utopian results. Marriage is not an issue for the President to be overly concerned with, as he has the least impact of all elected officials on the definition of marriage. This, like abortion, should be a major factor in determining how we vote for the Senate and Congress, not the President.

So where does that leave the President? Can he influence education? Clearly President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act is evidence that he can. Can he affect the price of gasoline? Yes, and more easily so if we allow him to tap our own natural resources and not rely so heavily on foreign oil. Can he reduce (or raise) our taxes? Well, if you're an American reading this, you probably received at least one of President Bush's tax rebates or so-called economic stimulus checks over the past eight years.

Most importantly, the President is (or should be) our chief foreign policy expert. No one can be expected to have more knowledge or more expertise of world affairs than the recognized leader of the free world. And while all of the issues I've discussed so far can have an impact on the way we live our lives from day to day, nothing can have a greater impact on life as we know it than living our lives in fear of invasion, attack, or the downfall of our democracy. No single issue is as important to the furtherance of liberty as foreign policy. We must elect a President who is familiar with world affairs, who knows and has worked with world leaders, who has life experience to suggest that he can make strong, sound judgment calls, and who has the courage to stand upon his convictions and the humility to admit when he is wrong and to amend course as needed. If our President cannot be the leader in world affairs, there is nothing he can do domestically to compensate for the damage he might cause.

As I stated at the beginning of this article, I am a Christian Conservative. I registered to vote as a Republican because the Republican platform most consistently aligns with my values and my beliefs. I am not so closed-minded as to believe everything the Republican party says, however. I vote my values, my beliefs, my convictions. When this Presidential campaign cycle began so many months and so many candidates ago, I was a Fred Thompson supporter. When he dropped from the race, after much consideration and study, I fell in behind Rudy Guiliani (who, by the way, does not share my stance on abortion). When John McCain became the last Republican candidate standing, and the only Democrat choices remaining were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I reluctantly threw my support to the candidate who would achieve the greater good on the world front and do the least damage here at home: John McCain (actually, upon researching tonight, I realize that in January 2007, before Guiliani and Thompson were in the race, I had chosen McCain). Now that we are down to two major party candidates (and Bob Barr for the Libertarians), and I have seen those two candidates speak in the unique setting provided at the Saddleback Civil Forum, I no longer stand behind John McCain because he's all that's left. I support him now because I think that going forward, America needs a man like John McCain to preserve all that our founding fathers had in mind some 2000+ years ago.

I share with you now the volley that took place in 140 character snippets on Twitter as I watched the Saddleback forums. The debate was between myself and one petersantilli (his Twitter handle and, presumably, his name). For clarity, I have arranged the "tweets" as a thread, with replies falling in the appropriate place. I have also colored my tweets in Red and his tweets in Blue. Any additional editorializing I've added will appear in black italicized text.

Enjoy.

Watching the Saddleback Civil Forum with Obama and McCain. Wow, this should make the choice clear for anyone! http://is.gd/1Dky

No kidding. The choice is clearly OBAMA!

I don't know what you've been watching to come up with that choice.

Been studying Obama since Dec 2007, didn't change my opinion @ Saddleback

You've been studying, what, nearly his entire career in the Senate then?

Senator Obama has not yet completed his first four-year term in the Senate. Merely pointing out this lack of national experience to petersantilli.

Exactly what people are looking for, less tenure in DC.

In the middle of watching the Saddleback forums, CNN seems to have pulled the video. That's MSM corruption if ever it existed!

MSM conspiracy. Corrupt because they won't let you spin it to your liking

Not looking to spin it in any way. Just looking to watch it, and the video suddenly became unavailable. It's up again now.

But no spin is needed from me. The candidates give it all the spin that it needs.

Got the video going again, but the embed code points to a dead URL. Was going to post it for others to find easily.

Obama's a kind heart. Warm, sincere, thoughtful, and not-so-hot-headed-and-quick-on-the- "AT CONCEPTION"-trigger to get ur Christianity vote

When asked at what point an unborn baby has human rights, Senator McCain replied immediately, "At conception." Senator Obama shuffled and stalled while he came up with the following response: "that's above my pay-grade," suggesting that it is for God to decide. It is, of course, for God to decide, and we must either choose to interpret what God's decision is, or to accept that God's decision is that life begins at conception. Kudos to Senator McCain for having the conviction to take a stance and make a decision on what he believes. It concerns me that a Presidential candidate might be hesitant to make some kind of decision on the topic. This is also the first point at which the Obama supporter engages in attack mode. To suggest that McCain's stance is only given for the purpose of wooing Christian voters, and that Christian voters are so easily swayed into how to vote.

If you knew me at all, you'd know mine is not a "Christianity" vote, just a "Patriotic American" vote.

I'm not a McCain man, so much. But given the current choices, there is no other choice to make.

I don't believe it really matters where POTUS stands on marriage, abortion, etc., regardless what my own views are....

...don't think he can really effect change there. Most importantly is, will he lead us to our downfall....

...by making poor decisions on the world front? Or will he stand up for American principles and democracy?

Meaning: to lead us to the downfall of American society as we have known it for over two centuries by being unable to form a thought, decision, or strategy without first weighing the political ramifications. Like him or not, President Bush has always done what he thought was best, regardless of what the polls might say about him afterward. Senator McCain has had many unpopular positions on the issues, but has always had the courage to stand upon his convictions whether people agree with him or not. I challenge anyone to describe where Senator Obama stands on any issue that is not fully in toe with the party line. When push comes to shove, there may not be time to consider political ramifications before making a decision. Our President has to be able to act swiftly and intelligently, and can only do so based upon experience and upon wanting to do what's right, not just what's right today.

...at whose expense? Standing up for principles & democracies costs $10 billion per month. I really want OURS to be a priority

Establishing our principles and democracy cost our founders their lives. Defend that at any financial cost!

If concerned about our downfall, current trends set by years of GOP war & reck-onomy are not upward towards prosperity

I'm not concerned about financial prosperity. Defending our values has never come cheap, but always been money well spent.

If we allow ourselves to become ruled by money, we are doomed to failure. We cannot fail to achieve our goals because of the price tag. During World War II, the entire country sacrificed for the cause of defeating evil abroad. Food products and petroleum products were rationed. Women went to work in factories while their husbands went to war. Everyone did their part. We once again face a great evil. Regardless of why this war started, or where you think it should be fought, we are at war against an evil force that believes it's God-given purpose is to eliminate us. What have you sacrificed for your country in support of this cause? Why is it that sixty years after World War II we suddenly don't have to sacrifice when our nation is at war?

We'll put all you big spenders on an island off the coast, shoot missiles & yell at Jihaddies. Let us know how that goes

It goes like this: we establish a new great democracy while the one you're so careless about crumbles.

All the money in the world cannot defeat the determination of the passionate defenders of freedom.

Democracy will survive and thrive where liberty is defended. It will fail when we let our guard down and take our sites off the prize.

Well then. Try it out. I think it's worth descovering (sic) if your new island gets attacked, or if we fair better by minding our own

See you in the history books, then. Thanks for the interesting chatter. GOODNIGHT TO ALL.

It is at this point that this debate was over for me. It was midnight here in Indiana, and an early morning ahead. Past experience has taught me that people such as petersantilli will go on forever, sounding less coherent and making less sense, just for the sake of the argument. Read on as he proves my point.

People who say that typically have a sub-prime loan, credit card bills, and let other people balance the war check-book

Shall we blame your stupidity & ignorance on failure of education, Patriot Act, or solely on governmental control of our media?

Again, more attacks and insults. I'll only address the "governmental control of our media" by saying, tune into CNN or MSNBC or CBS or ABC and you'll see that not only does the government not control our media, but if anything the media controls our government. The mainstream media has overlooked so much real news this election cycle in favor of spinning the latest rumor or hearsay in favor of the candidate(s) that they favor that I don't think anyone with a working knowledge of the English language can say that the government controls American media.

A quote for the history books "I'm not concerned about financial prosperity." - Average Joe

It's voters like @AverageJoe that frighten me & my family

Interesting, to say the least. It's sad that some people can't have an informed political debate without resorting to smear tactics, insults, lies, and innuendo. I guess I shouldn't have expected much more given the situation.

Your comments?

Joe

Read more at Redstate.com.


Friday, June 13, 2008

Tim Russert Dead at 58

Russert was just back from a family trip to Italy and was in his Washington office working when he collapsed. NBC said he was recording voiceovers for Sunday's "Meet the Press."
I must say that I, for one, will miss Tim Russert during this year's election cycle, and that I'll miss him on Meet The Press. Our thoughts are with the Russert family and those who have grown close to Tim Russert over his career.

Joe


Thursday, February 21, 2008

What's Wrong With This Picture?

I'm going to make just a couple of quick observations about the newly reported John McCain lobbyist scandal.

What's wrong with this picture? Is it that John McCain may or may not have been involved in some way with a female lobbyist? The New York Times (whom I won't dignify with a link) alleges not that John McCain did something politically immoral with this lobbyist, but that he did something personally immoral with her. That his sin was against his spouse and not the American public.

So what's wrong with this picture? Senator McCain denies the allegations. He denies being involved in any inappropriate way the lobbyist in question. He denies having any type of romantic relationship with her.

So what's wrong with this picture? If McCain did do something wrong, that's his business. Does it affect the American people? Maybe. But no more than when "President" Bill Clinton was involved with Monica Lewinsky in the White House. In fact, I would submit that what Bill Clinton did in the White House was more of a sin against the American people because it took place within the hallowed halls of the White House.

So what's wrong with this picture? The media, that's what. I've been watching coverage of this story this morning mostly on MSNBC, and what I keep seeing over and over and over is that the media seems to present this in a light that would have more negative impact than positive on John McCain. They say things that sound somewhat supportive of McCain, but the images that they show are all unflattering images. Both in television and print media, the pictures are of John McCain with a guilty grin on his face, of the lobbyist in an evening gown -- anything they can put on the screen to give us the worst possible impression.

So what's wrong with this story? That we, the American people, allow ourselves to be so influenced by the mainstream media that we would even give this story the amount of time that it took me to write this and you to read it.

Let's move on to what really matters, America.

Read more on Redstate.com.

Joe

Friday, June 29, 2007

Something to Think About

The following has been attributed to Jay Leno. I didn't verify that he said this, but it doesn't matter -- they are profound words no matter who said them.
The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right?

The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3rds of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.

So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, 'What we are so unhappy about?' Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes , an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have , and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks?

The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad?

Think about it......are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the "Media" told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.

Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for -profit corporations. They offer what sells , and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way......Insane!

Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.

We are among the most blessed people on Earth and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative. With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?
If you count yourself among the 67% or 69% listed above, maybe you should do us all a favor and LEAVE!

Joe

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Virginia Tech Massacre Timeline

So with all the Virginia Tech massacre dominating the network news today, here are the updates as I received them in my email as events unfolded. My personal comments are noted as text in GREEN.

Apr 16, 2007 10:35 AM
subject: CBSNews.com News Alert! One Person Dead In Virginia Tech Shooting
Police say one person is dead and Virginia Tech is under lockdown after reports of a shooter on campus.
It has since been reported that there was no lockdown of the campus. In fact, the only notification most of the students received when the tragedy began was an email, which most of them would have had no access to during classes.
Apr 16, 2007 10:23 AM
subject: Breaking News - Virginia Tech reports shooting on campus, tells students to stay indoors
MSNBC Breaking News: Virginia Tech reports shooting on campus, tells students to stay indoors
Apparently, "indoors" is exactly where is was not safe to be.
Apr 16, 2007 11:07 AM
subject: Breaking News - Official: Seven to eight additional casualities at Virginia Tech campus
MSNBC Breaking News: Official: Seven to eight additional casualities at Virginia Tech campus
This is actually the first breaking news email I received that even mentioned "casualties," as "seven to eight additional."
Apr 16, 2007 11:13 AM
subject: CBSNews.com News Alert! Suspected Gunman Arrested In Virginia Tech Shooting Spree
Officials have told The AP that a gunman suspected in one killing and seven to eight additional casualties at Virginia Tech has been arrested.
This was apparently the cause of the delay in notifying students and why the school did not evacuate the building. Police were on to the wrong suspect.
Apr 16, 2007 12:04 PM
subject: CBSNews.com News Alert! 17 Injuries Reported In Virgina Tech Rampage
A hospital spokeswoman reports that 17 Virginia Tech students have been treated for gunshot wounds and other injuries. At least one person is dead.

Apr 16, 2007 12:26 PM
subject: CBSNews.com News Alert! Cops: 22 Dead In Va. Campus Shooting Massacre
The Virginia Tech campus police chief says at least 22 are dead after a shooting massacre at the university.

Apr 16, 2007 12:23 PM
subject: Breaking News - University official reports multiple fatalities in shootings at Virginia Tech
MSNBC Breaking News: University official reports multiple fatalities in shootings at Virginia Tech

Apr 16, 2007 1:47 PM
subject: CBSNews.com News Alert! At Least 30 Dead In Va. Tech Shootings
CBS News confirms at least 30 people are dead after a gunman opened fire in a dorm and classroom at Virginia Tech.

Apr 16, 2007 2:27 PM
subject: CBSNews.com News Alert! Sources Tell CBS Lone Gunman Took Own Life
The FBI and the ATF believe two handguns were used by a lone gunman who took his own life after fatally shooting at least 30 people at Virginia Tech, sources tell CBS News.

Apr 16, 2007 2:28 PM
subject: Breaking News - Officials tell the Associated Press the Virginia Tech death toll has risen to 31
MSNBC Breaking News: Officials tell the Associated Press the Virginia Tech death toll has risen to 31

Apr 17, 2007 9:29 AM
subject: Breaking News - Virginia Tech gunman identified as South Korean native Cho Seung-Hui, 23
MSNBC Breaking News: Virginia Tech gunman identified as South Korean native Cho Seung-Hui, 23

Apr 18, 2007 8:29 AM
subject: Breaking News - Virginia Tech building evacuated, police swarm with guns drawn
MSNBC Breaking News: Virginia Tech building evacuated, police swarm with guns drawn
I received that report this morning. That police had swarmed a building on campus today with their guns drawn. There has been nothing more about it since then, that I have been able to find.
Apr 18, 2007 2:24 PM
subject: CBSNews.com News Alert! Officials Say Gunman Left Suicide Note
CBS News has learned a search of the Virginia Tech gunman's apartment produced eight pages of notes which law enforcement sources characterize as a suicide note. They say the writings "appear to be a manifesto."

Apr 18, 2007 4:43 PM
subject: CBSNews.com News Alert! Police Say Gunman Mailed Manifesto To News Station
Police say Virginia Tech shooting Cho-Shun-We is believed to have sent a manifesto, multiple photos and video to NBC News which were apparently mailed after his first shootings but before his second shootings, two hours later.
So what does this say of the media? There is such a rush to keep the American public informed that we are often given unconfirmed or totally false information, because the media is so anxious to be the first to report that they don't actually take the time to make sure that what they are reporting is true. Is this a case of too much, too soon?
Joe

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

Elaboration, As Promised

I mentioned earlier today that I believe President Bush gives us the straight scoop, not a bunch of political mumbo jumbo, and that I would elaborate on that tonight. Well, this is how I see it:

Think back to when President Bush was running for office in 2000. Do you remember him saying that he felt that God had called him to run for President? Do you remember? The liberal media made a big stink about how he thought that he was divinely appointed.

Here's how I look at it: who else would really do what President Bush has done if they were in the White House? Hear me out on this. Pause for just a moment and think of all of the candidates running in 2000. Go all the way back to before the primaries, when there were about 75 Democrats and 90 Republicans who wanted to be the next President of the United States. You don't even have to narrow it down to John Kerry, you can consider the entire field of Presidential hopefuls from both sides of the aisle. Go on, give yourself a minute. I'll wait.







No, seriously, take your time. I'll wait.







Got it? Can you picture all of the mumbo-jumboists that clogged the airwaves throughout the campaign? Okay, hold on to that. You're not quite done yet. Now, I want you to narrow that huge field of blowhards down to just one person. Not just any one person, but the one person (if one exists) that you think could have done a better job of responding to the attacks of 9/11 and provided better protection than President Bush has done.

You don't have to agree with President Bush. Forget about that for a moment. Forget about whether you support the war or not. Forget about whether you think the President like -- or manipulated intelligence. Forget about whether you think we should pull out of Iraq now, set a timetable, or see it through to victory. Drop all of your biases. Okay, I guess that might take a little time, too. Go ahead, I'll wait.





Long enough? No? Okay. I can be patient.






Maybe not that patient, because whatever you believe, you are probably so set in your belief that you can't forget your biases. That's okay, I understand, most people are that way.

But here's my point. Just what if President Bush was called by God to lead our country in this time of chaos? Think about it. Could Bill Clinton have done the job? I vote no. How about George Bush 41? He had his shot at Saddam and didn't finish the job. Again, no. Ronald Reagan? Yeah, I think he could have handled the situation, but unfortunately we will never find another man of his caliber to put in the White House.

And here's why I think that George Bush just may have been called by God for his present role. Name just one politician that would actually do what he feels is right in the face of this diversity without bowing to partisan politics. Fat chance!

But that's exactly what George W. Bush has done. He has done what he feels is right and best for our country, regardless of what public opinion or political correctness might dictate. That, my friend, is integrity, and why -- even with all of his shortcomings -- George W. Bush is probably the best man to guide our country through all that we've experienced since 9/11.

What do you think? Tell me. Email, or 206-600-4JOE.

Joe

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Bum Rush the Charts: THE RESULTS ARE IN!

Bum Rush the Charts: THE RESULTS ARE IN!:
"Our one day push led to 72 hours of excitement as the charts slowly aggregated. I believe these were our highest chart positions:

iTunes Rock Charts

US: 11
Canada: 10
Netherlands: 2
Germany: 12
Sweden: 7
Portugal: 31
UK: 71
Australia: 35
Austria: 35
Denmark: 40
Finland: 42
Ireland: 54
Italy: 30
New Zealand: 56
Norway: 23
Switzerland: 42

Overall Top 100 Songs Chart

Netherlands: 15
Norway: 55
Canada: 53
US: 99
Germany:98
Sweden: 98

Please let me know if I missed something.

If you were to look at all of the other bands on the charts at the same time, Black Lab was the ONLY UNSIGNED BAND.

Just getting onto the charts is pretty huge. Note that there are record companies out there that can't do what we did on the 24th.

Was there movement on the charts that wasn't apparent because they only updated 3x in 24 hours? Possibly. Was there an Apple conspiracy to shut down the charts on Bum Rush day? I really doubt it. Were the iTunes servers probably swamped because of the release of Apple TV and an update to the iTunes software? That would be my guess.

Did traditional media take notice? Washington Post, BBC, San Jose Mercury, Billboard, Spin, CBC, Businessweek and others. Raise your hand if you've ever heard of any of these.

Was it a success? You tell me. The whole experiment was set up to show that podcasting and new media is a social movement that has a pretty far reach across the globe. Bum Rush got a lot of people inside and outside of new media talking, shed more light on podcasting and helped get some exposure for an unsigned band and helped them tell their story about how they were mistreated by a major record label.

And in the end, even though we may not know the final sales report for 30 days, I'd wager that we raised thousands of dollars for the scholarship fund. Some kid who couldn't afford college before will get to go this fall because of the podcasting and blogging commuities. I don't know about you, but that makes me feel pretty good.

Honestly, 100 percent the credit belongs to you, the podcasters, podcast listeners, bloggers and blog readers who took part in Bum Rush the Charts.

Imagine what we could have done if we had made it a whole Bum Rush week instead of a day?

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Daylight Saving Time

We all have our opinion about Daylight Saving Time, and I've voiced mine here several times before. Read on...

From CBSNews.com:
Saving Daylight, But Not Much Else
March 22, 2007(National Review Online)
This column was written by Melana Zyla Vickers.

I presume to speak on behalf of all early risers when I say that this premature switch to daylight-savings time that began last weekend is the worst political decision since Congress gave $13 million to organizers of the World Toilet Summit. There we were — in the Mid-Atlantic region, at least — tens of millions of us, nine days ago, on the cusp of spring, waking to the sound of mating cats and the sight of budding dandelions, only to have our thoughtful representatives flush us back into December darkness.

Children who just a week or so ago were inspired by morning light to jump out of bed for school are now hibernating under their covers like confused grizzlies — albeit smallish, furless ones. In the evenings the same smallish grizzlies are now wired, unable to sleep, tormented by the playground sets still visible in the yards outside.

Sure, once daylight-savings had kicked in on the traditional first Sunday in April, the children would still have needed incentives and/or parental force to overcome the call of the backyard and that extra push into bed until the end of the school year. But — as if it needed to be said — extra weeks spent enforcing bedtime is nothing like extra weeks spent ripening a Stilton: More is never better. It's no good if the enforcer becomes tougher, more blue-veined and more inclined to say the whole thing stinks.

And for what? The Dems who introduced the measure, and the Republicans who went along because the daylight-savings change was tucked into the 2005 energy bill, say it'll save energy. Not mine, I can tell you that much. If my representative in Congress wants to attach an electricity-generating wind turbine to the posterior of my 5-year-old running around crazed in her pajamas at 7:45 every night, he might have an argument, (and I'd be able to get a firmer handle on the 5-year-old). Barring that, there are no energy savings to be had.

It's not that hard to figure scientifically: Wake up in the coldest, darkest hour of a March day, and you're going to turn on lights and turn up the heat; and shower longer; and make a warm breakfast if you have the time. Unless the additional energy expended in this government-gifted hour of morning darkness is cancelled by any energy saved at night, in office buildings or singles gyms or happy-hour speakeasies or wherever it is that this moral and magical conservation is taking place, there's a net expenditure, not savings, of electricity.

Skeptical? Talk to the University of California Energy Institute. Scholars there just published a paper calculating that Australians, who have already twice gone through this experiment of messing with their daylight-savings dates (for good-sport reasons such as accommodating evening events in the 2000 Olympics and the 2006 Commonwealth Games), saw their net energy-consumption increase.

There's more of a downside to jumping the gun on daylight-savings time than lost parental sleep. There's also the ominous "increase in fatal accidents" following the shift to daylight-savings that is reported by the journal Sleep Medicine. (OK, fine, the small rise in accidents involving tired drivers happens every year when we switch. But what sort of person would want to hasten the arrival of this sort of carnage?)

The politicians who approved this daylight-saving madness in 2005 — and they know who they are — should be glad we're nowhere near election day. Because if the legions of morning persons I know were going to the polls today — particularly in the morning — the politicians would be toast. In the next election cycle, they will do well to prepare for cries at town hall meetings of "Where were you on the daylight-savings issue of 2005?"

Where, in particular, were the pols who claim to feel soccer-moms' pain? If ever there was a suburbanite's issue, this was it. The politicians should have seen the national threat on the horizon and defeated it in the name of all that is good and holy. Instead, they said "aye" and "yea." It's not as if there hadn't been an energy bill in 200 years or whatever, and this was their only chance to vote for one. They were clearly asleep at the switch.

Political scientists scrutinizing this daylight-savings atrocity years from now will be sure to describe it as a prime instance of "values-transfer," wherein the government decides what is good for people and makes them swallow it; like separating one's papers and plastics or retiring from the workforce before all one's hair falls out.

But this instance of values-transfer is way worse. It makes children cry. It causes car accidents. Worst of all, it makes morning people cranky. And if the morning people are cranky, who's left? For all that cost, the change meets no objective at all, save generating overtime pay for all those computer programmers resetting trans-Atlantic airplane schedules, BlackBerrys, and Microsoft Windows, which, when last I checked, was still an hour late, on my screen at least.

If politicians don't get the point, it must mean they're sleeping-in past 7:15, seriously undermining their claim to be working for their constituents 24/7. If, on the other hand, they do understand the point, they ought to change things back to normal and leave people to their long-established habits. It's called seeing one's error in the clear light of day."
Joe

Sunday, March 4, 2007

Liberal Media and the Iraq War

U.S. troops enter Sadr City - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

We've known for quite some time that the liberal media is opposed to our actions in Iraq. They, like most of the United States Senate, were in favor of taking action in the war on terror. And, like most of the Democrats in the United States Senate, they are now opposed to the very measures they were in favor of to begin with. I don't think that's news to anyone.

But look at this. If you click the link above, you'll be taken to an MSNBC.com report about U.S. Troops entering Sadr City in Iraq. Now, I didn't go searching for this story. I received it in a daily email news digest i receive from MSNBC.com. What's significant about this? Well, this is what the headline and summary of this very same news story looked like in the email digest I received from MSNBC.com:

U.S. troops enter Sadder City
Hundreds of U.S. soldiers entered the Shiite stronghold of Sadder City on Sunday in the first major push into the area since an American-led security sweep began last month around Baghdad.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17450016/

Now, if you don't believe me, check out a screen capture of the email I received.



Now what's saddest of all is that MSNBC.com doesn't know the difference between Sadr City and what they called "Sadder City."

Joe

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Bum Rush the Charts

Bum Rush the Charts

Podcasting gets little respect from traditional media. To them we're little more than a joke, than amateurs. What they don't understand is that podcasting is more than just a delivery mechanism - it's a social movement. People are growing sick of the watered-down, cookie-cutter content that networks and record companies expect us to enjoy. We want and deserve more. Big corporate media derives its power by having the resources to mass market their product in a unified effort, which is why they think they're better than us. On March 22, 2007, we're going to give you a chance to change that.

A bunch of us podcasters started thinking, we can do better. We can match and exceed the reach of big media, corporate media, labels, and the entrenched interests. That's why, on March 22nd, the podcasting community is going to take an indie podsafe music artist to number one on the iTunes singles charts as a demonstration of our reach to Main Street and our purchasing power to Wall Street. The track we've chosen is "Mine Again" by the band Black Lab. A band, mind you, that was not just dropped from not just one, but two major record labels (Geffen and Sony/Epic) and in the process forced them to fight to get their own music back. We picked them because making them number one, even for just one day, will remind the RIAA record labels of what they turned their backs on - and who they ignore at their peril.

What's more, we're going to take it a step beyond that. We've signed up as an affiliate of the iTunes Music Store, and every commission made on the sale of "Mine Again" will be donated to college scholarships, partly because it's a worthy cause, but also partly because college students are among the most misunderstood and underestimated groups of people by big media.

If you believe in the power of new media, on March 22nd, 2007, take 99 cents and 2 minutes of your time to join the revolution and make iTunes "Mine Again". If you're a content producer (blogger, podcaster, etc.), we're asking you to join up with us and help spread the word to your listeners. Nothing would prove the power of new media more than showing corporate media that not only can we exceed their reach and match their purchasing power, but that we can also do it AND make a positive difference in the world. If we can succeed with this small example, then there's no telling what can do next.

For more details, come visit bumrushthecharts.com (bum rush the charts dot com) or send an e-mail to bumrushthecharts@gmail.com if you want to help out. It doesn't matter where you are or who you podcast with, we'd love to have you on board.

Sunday, February 4, 2007

Why I Didn't Watch Even One Down of Super Bowl XLI

-vs-
If you haven't already heard, the Indianapolis Colts have won Super Bowl XLI. Oops, can I even say that? "Super Bowl," I mean.

From SportsIllustrated Online:
The NFL has nixed a church's plans to use a wall projector to show the Colts-Bears Super Bowl game, saying it would violate copyright laws. ...

Initially, the league objected to the church's plan to charge a fee to attend and that the church used the license-protected words "Super Bowl" in its promotions. ...the NFL objected to the church's plans to use a projector to show the game, saying the law limits it to one TV no bigger than 55 inches. ...

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league's long-standing policy is to ban "mass out-of-home viewing" of the Super Bowl. An exception is made for sports bars and other businesses that show televised sports as a part of their everyday operations. ...

"It just frustrates me that most of the places where crowds are going to gather to watch this game are going to be places that are filled with alcohol and other things that are inappropriate for children," [the church's Pastor] said. "We tried to provide an alternative to that and were shut down." ...
Furthermore, my own church ran into a similar problem. In a message they sent out to members, they cited the following for canceling their Super Bowl party:
...the NFL has stated that churches hosting Super Bowl parties are in copyright violation if:
  1. They use the copyrighted name "Super Bowl."
  2. Charge an entrance fee.
  3. View the game on a screen larger than 55 inches.
While we have disagreements with the policy of the NFL, we are finding it difficult to get clarity on the true legalities on such short notice. We would be in violation of #3.... We are choosing to do what we always teach: do the right thing and take the high ground. We are canceling the party....
So, if you didn't catch it in there, as far as the NFL is concerned, it's okay to watch the Super Bowl in your own home, or the home of a friend, or at a bar. Places where you might be tempted to drink to excess and make a public nuisance of yourself if your team should win (or lose, even). But it's not okay to gather together with other members of your church inside the church building and watch the game. Does anybody else see anything wrong with this?

If you got those same people together that planned to watch the game inside the church building and took them to the local bar to watch the game, allowed them to eat all the free peanuts they can hold and not buy one drop of alcohol, the NFL would presumably be okay with that, but I'll bet the bar owners would be pretty upset.

So, the Indianapolis Colts have just won Super Bowl XLI, and I watched exactly none of the game. Not one minute. Not one down. Not one touchdown or interception. Not even one of the extremely over-priced commercials that gets so much hype every year. And I'm sure the NFL didn't miss me. But you know what, I didn't miss the game, either. Instead, I got to enjoy some time with my wife and son watching the "Scooby Bowl" on Nickelodeon.

Go Scooby!

Joe

Sunday, January 7, 2007

Average Joe Radio: Episode Three

This new little podcast I started,



is already in its Third Episode in under a week. Wow! It's supposed to be a weekly podcast. But there's been a lot to talk about, and I really enjoy doing it.

So how do I do it? In a very unconventional way.

First, I search The Podsafe Music Network for the best podsafe music I can find. I try to have a theme, but sometimes the theme comes to me later.

When I know what the theme will be, I pick two or three songs that fit the theme.

Now the unconventional part. I record all of my intros, commentary, and closing narrative during my lunch break, from the front seat of my car, on a Palm OS Handheld device! Episodes One and Two were recorded using the built-in Palm Voicemail software. The audio quality wasn't the best, but it worked. Starting with Episode Three, I'm recording on the same Palm Handheld using WaveEdit Pro, which allows me to record in mono or stereo, compressed or uncompressed, at almost any sampling rate. It also allows me to edit and mix the Wave files, reverse them, speed them up, slow them down, reduce the noise level, virtually anything I want to do with them. I record in several brief snippets.

I then play the Wave files in order on my Palm Handheld using PocketTunes, which gives me a feel for the flow and rhythm of the podcast, as well as a quick check of sound quality.

Though I do have the capability to encode the mp3 files on my Palm Handheld, I usually do so on my computer. Audio encoding is very processor-demanding and it seems to go much smoother and faster on a desktop PC.

For mixing purposes, I convert the selected music mp3 files to Wave files. I then mix the music and commentary together into one large Wave file on my desktop PC.

I then encode the final Wave file into mp3 format using Acoustica mp3 to Wave Converter Plus. For id3 tags, which tell your mp3 player what to display as Album, Artist, and Title info, as well as album art and genre, I pull the encoded mp3 file into RealPlayer on my desktop PC and edit the clip info.

All that's left is to upload the completed podcast to The Internet Archive, which provides free hosting and bandwidth for a low-budget podcaster like myself, and post the show notes to Average Joe Radio.

The final step to take is yours. You have to subscribe to the RSS Feed, download the podcast, listen, enjoy it, and tell your friends about it. Blog it, DIGG it, whatever it takes. Just spread the word.

And thanks for listening!

If you have any feedback -- whether you like the show or hate it -- send me your suggestions.

Joe

Subscribe in iTunes

Saturday, December 23, 2006

The First Lady on Iraq War Support

"First Lady Laura Bush had something to say about Iraq today... during an appearance on MSNBC. Mrs. Bush was asked by Norah O'Donnell why she thinks only two out of ten Americans, in our latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, said they approved of the President's handing in the war in Iraq. Mrs. Bush placed the blame squarely on the news media." ---NBC's Brian Williams

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

The Daily Gripe #37 - Camouflage

I'm no military strategist. I'm certainly not qualified to make battle plans or lead troops into battle. I served eight years on Active Duty in the Army. I was lucky enough to get to see other parts of the world at no cost to myself (other than my portion of taxes that covered such things). I was also lucky enough to never be deployed into harms way. I served during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. I served during Operation Just Cause, and numerous other maneuvers. I was lucky enough to be assigned to units that were not deployed in any of these activities.

Lucky, I say, because although I was prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for my country, I was never asked to. While I have the utmost respect for those serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world, I am thankful today that I was never asked to go into battle.

But something really gripes me!

Any time you turn on the network news -- CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, MSNBC, CNN -- you see two things. First, you see insurgents on the street, armed and dressed in the common attire of the rest of society. Second, you see United States military members on the same city street, standing next to armored desert-colored "Humvees," wearing full battle dress: desert camouflage; Kevlar helmets; LBE belts heavily laden with ammunition pouches, canteens and other equipment; cravats; combat boots; flak vests; full ruck sacks; etc. What's the problem here? Let me tell you.

During my time in the military, while on training maneuvers, I never found myself even remotely comfortable in full battle dress. That's the first problem. While our troops are loaded down with a hundred pounds of movement-restricting equipment, the enemy looks just like any other man on the street.

Which is the second problem: our troops stick out like sore thumbs while the enemy blends in. If some Saddam-loyalist freak wants to kill an American GI all he has to do is look for the color of desert sand in the middle of town. Boom! And if he hits an Iraqi civilian, who cares? But how does that same GI defend himself? Duck! Because if he retuns fire, at whom does he shoot? If our soldier kills an Iraqi civilian because he can't tell the difference between a civilian and the enemy, he could go on trial for his life. At the very least, that soldier, the American military, President Bush, and the entire cause in Iraq will be dragged through the press and crucified for killing an innocent civilian.

I know we have to outfit our troops with the latest in protective equipment for their safety, but come on! What protection does a person get from wearing a desert camouflaged uniform on the streets of Baghdad? You may as well dress him in a t-shirt and paint a bullseye on his back!

I served during the late eighties and early nineties, more than twenty years after the "end" of the Vietnam War, and we wore jungle fatigues! Why? We haven't fought a war in the jungle since Vietnam, but American GI's stationed here in the U.S. are still issued jungle fatigues!

I'm a supporter of the military, and I voted for President Bush twice, and for his father twice, but I think it's past time to outfit our soldiers with real camouflage. The word camouflage is defined as: the act of concealing the identity of something or someone by modifying its appearance. Tell me, how is it camouflage if we dress our troops in ways that make them unmistakably identifiable as American miltary?

I believe if we ever want to truly win this war and bring our troops home we need to forget about such nonsense as the antiquated and oft-overlooked (by others) Geneva Conventions and adopt a new convention: When In Rome. That's right, if we're going to fight a nonstandard enemy on his own turf, we have to fight like the enemy. We have to look like the enemy, act like the enemy, and fight by the same rules (or lack thereof). As long as we continue to hold ourselves to a standard that no one holds this enemy to, we will be fighting an uphill battle.

Tell me what you think. Email me, or submit your comments using the link below.

Joe

Average Joe's Review Store