Talk Show Integrity

Being on the road most of the day I have the opportunity to listen to more than my fair share of talk radio. I listen to talk show hosts on all sides of the political spectrum. I hear from all sides and think it is important to do so in order to understand the thoughts from different points of view. No matter what the rhetoric or how much passion these talk show hosts exhibit, they all have one thing in common – selling their sponsors advertising.

Now I understand that talk radio is like any other endeavor in this country. It is conducted with the ultimate goal of making a profit and I have absolutely no problem with that. I do find it humorous how similar the different host are with the advertising while so different with their political views. Makes a person wonder as to the integrity of the individual doing the hosting.

How much credibility can a talk show host have when he spins opinions and stories into he next advertisement. Here is an example: “Typical government and their lack of security with personal records of servicemen. Speaking of securing records, why not consider Acme (I know it is a cliché), YES Acme Computer Back-Up System for your personal records?” It makes a person wonder, are they honestly reporting on an issue or setting up the next paid on-air advertisement?

Then there are the real integrity challenges. A recent example that comes to mind is with the many talk show hosts who have been very critical of GM and Chrysler. They chastise these companies for their mismanagement, and then they move right into an on-air advertisement for the very car manufactures they are criticizing. So which is it, the harsh criticism or the glowing advertisement.

I guess it is an example of the unseemly side of political talk radio, when you get right down to it the question remains are the hosts true to their message and beliefs, or are they beholding to their sponsors?

And Now A Word From Our Sponsors,
Bill

Is Palestine Nation Worthy?

Many argue that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech last week on beginning talks for a Two-State Solution set the bar too high for the Palestinian Authority to reach. The amazing aspect of Netanyahu’s statement is that he would even consider the concept of a Two-State Solution. Look at the facts and trends involved in this issue.

Who are the Palestinians, what does that term mean? There has never in the history of the world been a country of Palestine. Palestine is a region of the Middle East just as other parts of the world has regions. It covers Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, as well as portions of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon; just as in Europe there is the Alpine region and in America there is the Appalachia region. Following World War II there was an arrangement made to establish a Two-State Solution and the Arabs, not the Jews, disagreed with it and walked out on it. So why, now, after all these years, is incumbent upon the Israelis, and the world, to cave to a group of people who have traditionally never been happy with their place in the world; a place they themselves created?

But just on the off hand this Two-State Solution was to come about. If Israel did give in to this concept, will the Palestinians quit? History shows that every time Israel gets the upper hand on the militant Palestinians, the Israelis eventually give a ceasefire in order to allow the Palestinian people to recover. The only problem with these ceasefires is that instead of recovering and trying to sit down at the table to negotiate, the militants reorganize, re-supply and then re-launch their attacks against Israel. So how can the Israeli people be reassured that creating a Two-State Solution won’t just entice the militants to increase their efforts and obtain more?

Lastly, will allowing for a Two-State Solution actually create a civilized county of Palestine? No, and as an example look back to September 2005, where as part of the Oslo Peace Accords, the Gaza Strip was turned over to the Palestinian Authority to rule. Israel vacated the Strip of settlers and military and left the Palestinian Authority in complete control. Less than 18 months later, in January 2007, a civil war began between the Hamas and Fatah factions of the Palestinian Authority for control over the Gaza Strip. Fighting that has erupted several times since and the infrastructure of the Gaza Strip has been completely destroyed leaving the Gaza Strip at the mercy of aid from international agencies and, in an ironic turn of fate, from Israel.

In the end, it is imperative for the world to understand that nation building is a negative endeavor. Nations are created and destroyed by the events that shape the world, not built by countries carving up the map. Since the end of the World War II and the Cold War, It should be so obvious that nation building can not and is not a viable path by which successful countries are developed; however, many in the world still dwell on this as a viable plan for rectifying the problems in the Middle East.

Sincerely,
Bill

Irena Sendler

In a discussion with my children the other night, I made the point that rewards and awards are nice, but they are insignificant to the work you do in your life and the lives you touch along the way. I thought of a few examples and shared them. In looking back on that night, I realized that I had forgotten about this story until this morning when someone sent me an email reminding me of it.

Last year, May 12, 2008 to be exact, a small, frail, 92 year-old Polish lady died quietly in her nursing home in Warsaw. Her name was Irena Sendler and while she died peacefully, her life was anything but. She was born in 1910 and during the late 1930’s, when the Nazis invaded Poland, Irena was working as a young Catholic social worker. She joined the Polish resistance and worked to save as many of the young Jewish children as she could.

It was her job to check the Jewish ghetto for Typhus as the Germans did not want the disease to spread out of the ghetto. In this capacity, she was able to smuggle and save as many as 2,500 children of all ages from certain death at the hands of the SS. These children were given to Polish families and catholic convents to raise. Their identities were written on lists Irena made, placed in jars, and buried to keep hidden from the Nazis.

She smuggled these children in packages, in food sacks, in ambulances, and by whatever means she could. In 1943 she was captured by the Gestapo and tortured to give up any information, she was beaten to the point where both her arms and legs were eventually broken and mutilated the rest of her life. She never spoke a word. Sentenced to death, her resistance partners managed to bribe a guard to save her life. On the way to be executed, the guard left her broken body by the roadside, in the woods. After her rescue she continued to work covertly to save as many children as she could.

After the war, during a time when she should have been famous for her efforts, she was persecuted and imprisoned by the new, communist Polish government for collaborating with the West and the Polish government in exile.

Not until 1983 was Irena allowed to leave Poland. That was to attend a presentation in her honor by the Israeli government. Much has happened in the world since the many years of hardship, both at the hands of the Nazis and the Communists. Since that time, Irena has been celebrated by many governments and religious organizations; although, I doubt any award is sufficient given the truly heroic acts managed by this small woman in the face of two of the most tyrannical and horrific regimes in the history of the world.

In 2007, Irena was nominated for the Nobel Prize for Peace for her work during World War II. She was beaten out for the award by Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – REALLY. Seriously, is the “fight” for a climate change philosophy that is still not scientifically proven a real competitor to someone who accomplished the works Irena Sendler did?

I wonder what those children would say of the slight the Nobel Committee gave to the woman who saved their lives. In the end though, I imagine that the life’s work and the 2,500 or so children she saved make the Nobel Prize look like a pittance. Regardless, I congratulate Irena Sendler for the work she did and know that she is happy, healthy, and rewarded in Heaven for a life of sacrifice here on Earth.

God Speed Irena,
Bill

Questioning the Judge

Okay, President Obama has nominated his first candidate for appointment to the Supreme Court. Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. According to the requirements of the U. S. Constitution, she is more than adequately qualified and the president has every right to nominate her. Of course being that this is the new president’s first choice as a Supreme Court Justice, the Republicans will make it interesting to get her approved.

I have heard the talk of racial overtones by various comments made by Judge Sotomayor and I have seen her remarks made on camera about the Court of Appeals being the place where policy is made. Those two issues bother me a little as they seem to be overlooked by the mainstream media; however, these incidents are not what bothers me.

My problems with Judge Sotomayor stem from other factors. I look at the comments made during her introduction, her rulings and the rate of which her rulings have been overturned by the High court.

During her introduction by President Obama she made a statement about how she feels it is her responsibility to take into account how her ruling will affect those she rules for and against. In reality this is completely irrelevant to the legal decision-making process when determining how to rule on a case. The rulings should come based on how the law applies to the situation regardless of how that ruling affects those who are involved in the case.

Another problem stems from the wide range of area covered by her rulings that appear to indicate that her rulings tend to be based more on her beliefs and concerns rather than the interpretation of the law and whether those laws and prior rulings are constitutional. Personal feelings and beliefs must not be a part of the decision-making process when determining the application of law to a case.

Lastly, the unsettling fact that many of her controversial decisions have been overturned by the United States Supreme Court, the very institution she seeks appointment to. What is most disturbing is that in the most contentious rulings she did not make statements supporting her stand. Making a decision that affects the lives of many with little to no justification is a very unsettling habit.

Overall, it does seem that overall Judge Sotomayor is more of a moderate than Justice Souter, who she looks to replace. But it is important to remember that a republican president appointed Justice Souter, a republican president who either misjudged his appointee or was more concerned with his appointee’s qualifications rather than his political leanings. It seems that current justices are chosen more for their political stance.

Finally, the last real issue that actually bothers me is that once again we are getting a judge from the federal bench with an Ivy League pedigree. As I wrote in my “Quick Points” blog, President Obama had a chance to choose someone with a degree outside the Ivy League and from somewhere other than the federal bench. Instead, we have another job description/pedigree to go along with those already on the bench – well, except for Justice Stevens. Guess all those law students outside Harvard, Yale, and Columbia will have to dash their dreams of serving on the nations highest court.

All Rise (Again),
Bill