1. http://moirasnewsblog.blogspot.com “I feel like I've been reading about crime for 827382 days...”
2. http://lauraswanson.blogspot.com “Broadcast Blitz”
3. http://pierulesyou.blogspot.com/ “Gay marriage”
4. http://bryannews1.blogspot.com “Bush endorses… Clinton?”
5. http://kaylasnewsblog.blogspot.com “$5,000 per baby? I wonder how much for twins…”
6. http://brianaword.blogspot.com/ “Let’s try something new…”
7. http://devonhaley.blogspot.com/ “Sept. 12th entry
8. http://newsreportingandwriting.blogspot.com/ “Sept. 22nd- The Petraeus Deal”
Saturday, October 20, 2007
"Covering Crime & Justice" ...1 page at a time
Below I will attempt to convey what the website "Covering Crime and Justice" tried to tell of crime journalism, etc. in chapters 1, 5, and 7. I started off slow, but then the Across the Universe soundtrack came on my iTunes, so it picks up.
Chapter 1 covers "The crime beat."
Apparently, writing about crime "has it all: greed, sex, violence, comedy and tragedy."
So... it's a tabloid in 400 words. This is perhaps why crime reports, apparently, seem to have the most initiative a knack for finding sources. It says those who don't pass the crime beat/deadline test are most likely destined to be a feature writer (fun fact: Dave Krahasnfkgjudbhsk appears to think this is an insult. Um... no.)
So far, it seems as though the crime beat is a respectful place to be- much like out book tried to tell us the obit page was.
I was somewhat surprised that some crime beat-ers are also required to write long-form pieces like features and analyses, thereby making them incredibly busy and probably quite bitter.
History- crime has really always been a part of the public's "need to know" and fascination. We have always wanted to know who is doing what wrong and who is getting busted for it. Why do you think Paris Hilton's one stretch in jail was all over CNN? Crime- defined either as civil or criminal, turns into stories because of its interest. In civil, if someone important is being sued or is in trouble, we care. In criminal, if someone notable has violated a law, we care. For example, if Donald Trump commits commits fraud or tax evasion (like he would really need to), we would care.
Background: meet the people you will need to later hit up for info. Call cops, follow them around, maybe even interview the janitor.
Getting arrested- er, um, I mean other people getting arrested. One can only be arrested with probable cause, so basically if the police is fairly sure the person is guilty. Once they're arrested, they must be read their miranda rights. (What they say on Law and Order when the scumbag gets booked). The "perp" is then questioned, booked, and arraigned. Here is where you can mess up: be carefulw hat you say or else you can make the perp appear guilty.
I enjoyed this: "A crime reporter from Cleveland offered a common sense answer a few years ago when he was asked why crime stories were so popular. He replied, "Because people like to read them." "
Ohhhhhhh Ohio.
Of course people enjoy reading them- it's like an action movie in a few hundred words. There's the appeal in these stories. Infamy results from the news media emphasizing one crime issue for a long period of time: OJ, Lacey Peterson, unabomber, etc. Why do you think the stories went waayyy longer than they should have? Because people watched/read them.
Sources are vital - especially since I refuse to breaking into crime scenes and bothering policemen at the station. This is why you would call the captain and create a relationship ahead of time. Get a source you can trust, too, since many will try to lead reporters astray or ignore them.
When it comes to writing, you'll want to add the most important items of the story. Aka, why would the public actually care? Does it even affect them?
HAHAha... haha. "Journalists are sometimes arrested while on the job." Why? Because they do stupid things. Don't do stupid things.
Chapter 5: Don't be a victim.
Interviewing victims for their side of the story is necessary for most crime stories. It also helps to give an overall view of the story, not just a certain aspect. News media can help the public by giving information about the crime so that it may not happen again and people can be aware of their safety. For me, it would also be important to confirm the victim's story, so as not to make out the wrong person as the harmed one.
When speaking to victims, don't be an idiot. Be nice, be gentle, and don't accuse them of anything. Carrying on...
Getting outside information is also helpful, like witnesses or neighbors. They may provide information that the victim and police couldn't give you. Sexual assault victims are the most difficult becuase they most likely do not want to speak with anyone at all, let alone a stranger/reporter. Names of these victims must be secret for their own sake. This makes it harder to interview them, as well. People are beginning to think that this rule is outdated, but that's ridiculous. It's simply not fair to print their names, for their own safety. News isn't worth it.
Chapter 7: Courtship
The goings-on in the courtroom are of interest to the public: exhibit A- COURT TV.
The courts take part in many aspects of our lives, therefore cases in the courts are important and of interest because they affect so much of us.
Court rulings are public events. Reporters can go and report on everything that happens there- reactions of witnesses, etc. While the reporter is in the court, it's important to observe everything, but mostly just sit and waaiit. Boring, but again... Robert Redford can do it, so why not me?
Reporters have to read the documents that go along with the case- they are libel-proof, so you can't get busted for reporting on what they say. Docket sheets are some of these documents- they tell you what has been brought before a judge and who is involved. Court systems also have important sources to contact- clerks, assistants, etc. Lawyers, not so much, because they scare me.
Before the trial itself, a reporter needs background information- facts about the crime, who is involved, hearing results, etc. The trial may be high-profile and high-impact, in which case the people involved are important to know. People- like the judge.
Chapter 1 covers "The crime beat."
Apparently, writing about crime "has it all: greed, sex, violence, comedy and tragedy."
So... it's a tabloid in 400 words. This is perhaps why crime reports, apparently, seem to have the most initiative a knack for finding sources. It says those who don't pass the crime beat/deadline test are most likely destined to be a feature writer (fun fact: Dave Krahasnfkgjudbhsk appears to think this is an insult. Um... no.)
So far, it seems as though the crime beat is a respectful place to be- much like out book tried to tell us the obit page was.
I was somewhat surprised that some crime beat-ers are also required to write long-form pieces like features and analyses, thereby making them incredibly busy and probably quite bitter.
History- crime has really always been a part of the public's "need to know" and fascination. We have always wanted to know who is doing what wrong and who is getting busted for it. Why do you think Paris Hilton's one stretch in jail was all over CNN? Crime- defined either as civil or criminal, turns into stories because of its interest. In civil, if someone important is being sued or is in trouble, we care. In criminal, if someone notable has violated a law, we care. For example, if Donald Trump commits commits fraud or tax evasion (like he would really need to), we would care.
Background: meet the people you will need to later hit up for info. Call cops, follow them around, maybe even interview the janitor.
Getting arrested- er, um, I mean other people getting arrested. One can only be arrested with probable cause, so basically if the police is fairly sure the person is guilty. Once they're arrested, they must be read their miranda rights. (What they say on Law and Order when the scumbag gets booked). The "perp" is then questioned, booked, and arraigned. Here is where you can mess up: be carefulw hat you say or else you can make the perp appear guilty.
I enjoyed this: "A crime reporter from Cleveland offered a common sense answer a few years ago when he was asked why crime stories were so popular. He replied, "Because people like to read them." "
Ohhhhhhh Ohio.
Of course people enjoy reading them- it's like an action movie in a few hundred words. There's the appeal in these stories. Infamy results from the news media emphasizing one crime issue for a long period of time: OJ, Lacey Peterson, unabomber, etc. Why do you think the stories went waayyy longer than they should have? Because people watched/read them.
Sources are vital - especially since I refuse to breaking into crime scenes and bothering policemen at the station. This is why you would call the captain and create a relationship ahead of time. Get a source you can trust, too, since many will try to lead reporters astray or ignore them.
When it comes to writing, you'll want to add the most important items of the story. Aka, why would the public actually care? Does it even affect them?
HAHAha... haha. "Journalists are sometimes arrested while on the job." Why? Because they do stupid things. Don't do stupid things.
Chapter 5: Don't be a victim.
Interviewing victims for their side of the story is necessary for most crime stories. It also helps to give an overall view of the story, not just a certain aspect. News media can help the public by giving information about the crime so that it may not happen again and people can be aware of their safety. For me, it would also be important to confirm the victim's story, so as not to make out the wrong person as the harmed one.
When speaking to victims, don't be an idiot. Be nice, be gentle, and don't accuse them of anything. Carrying on...
Getting outside information is also helpful, like witnesses or neighbors. They may provide information that the victim and police couldn't give you. Sexual assault victims are the most difficult becuase they most likely do not want to speak with anyone at all, let alone a stranger/reporter. Names of these victims must be secret for their own sake. This makes it harder to interview them, as well. People are beginning to think that this rule is outdated, but that's ridiculous. It's simply not fair to print their names, for their own safety. News isn't worth it.
Chapter 7: Courtship
The goings-on in the courtroom are of interest to the public: exhibit A- COURT TV.
The courts take part in many aspects of our lives, therefore cases in the courts are important and of interest because they affect so much of us.
Court rulings are public events. Reporters can go and report on everything that happens there- reactions of witnesses, etc. While the reporter is in the court, it's important to observe everything, but mostly just sit and waaiit. Boring, but again... Robert Redford can do it, so why not me?
Reporters have to read the documents that go along with the case- they are libel-proof, so you can't get busted for reporting on what they say. Docket sheets are some of these documents- they tell you what has been brought before a judge and who is involved. Court systems also have important sources to contact- clerks, assistants, etc. Lawyers, not so much, because they scare me.
Before the trial itself, a reporter needs background information- facts about the crime, who is involved, hearing results, etc. The trial may be high-profile and high-impact, in which case the people involved are important to know. People- like the judge.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Giuliani: "um... 9/11."
Let's quickly run through the list of things Giuliani has going for him during this election.
1. 9/11.
Well, that was lengthy.
In an opinion column ("Rudy Finds a New Topic") in the New York Times recently, Gail Collins brings up the fact that Giuliani just may have to realize that he cannot just keep saying "terrorism" and "9/11" throughout the entire election. Whether Giuliani fully realizes this, though, is another question. Collins contends that Giuliani has had to find another issue that republicans can latch on to easily. What is that for Giuliani? "Fiscal. Discipline." By doing this, he is really just bringing up actions in the past that he has done in NYC. All candidates will mention good acts they have done in their careers in government, but Giuliani must really be forcing himself at that podium NOT to say "September 11th." Instead, we find him mentioning taxes -- some taxes not even under his jurisdiction, but if they happened around him while he was in power, well then By George he started them.
Sidenote here that is interesting is that Collins compares Giuliani to his opponent, Mitt Romney. They both have amazing resumes, and they are strikingly similar. "Amazing how the two most opposite human beings in the world can look so identical on paper."
The issue here is Giuliani is big talk when it comes to the economy and government spending, but his plan in NYC will never work for the federal government.
"So what do you prefer, American voter, the guy who has a bold plan for controlling spending that is never going to work, or the one who would not say anything specific if you waterboarded him?
Welcome to campaign 2008."
I find it funny that even years after the tragedy that is September 11th, Rudy is still trying to use it as a political crutch and that one day (soon) it will catch up to him and he just may have to have some real plans for the country.
And now that is campaign is off and running, many things about Giuliani are catching up to him. Like, the fact that his speeches center around two towers falling, for example. Also, the fact that he is a confused version of a Republican is not helping his image with either party. "the prospect seemed a long shot for a Republican who supported abortion rights and restrictions on gun sales."
Let's now run through the list of things he has going against him.
1. He's a Republican.
1b. He's a supporter of Bush.
1c. He's a supporter of Bush's Iraq war policy.
2. His appearance on Saturday Night Live in drag (Rudina? really Rudy?)
3. Weak personal life. (he has been married 3 times and his children don't seem to like him much. If his own kids don't even know if they will vote for him, why would we?)
4. He's Roman Catholic.
With that, I'll leave with a lesson from Family Guy: when you're making a speech, don't talk about the issues or the changes you'll make. Just say words that will bring in the crowd. For instance: terrorism. 9/11. war. threat. In reality, it works for speeches -- but not for elections.
1. 9/11.
Well, that was lengthy.
In an opinion column ("Rudy Finds a New Topic") in the New York Times recently, Gail Collins brings up the fact that Giuliani just may have to realize that he cannot just keep saying "terrorism" and "9/11" throughout the entire election. Whether Giuliani fully realizes this, though, is another question. Collins contends that Giuliani has had to find another issue that republicans can latch on to easily. What is that for Giuliani? "Fiscal. Discipline." By doing this, he is really just bringing up actions in the past that he has done in NYC. All candidates will mention good acts they have done in their careers in government, but Giuliani must really be forcing himself at that podium NOT to say "September 11th." Instead, we find him mentioning taxes -- some taxes not even under his jurisdiction, but if they happened around him while he was in power, well then By George he started them.
Sidenote here that is interesting is that Collins compares Giuliani to his opponent, Mitt Romney. They both have amazing resumes, and they are strikingly similar. "Amazing how the two most opposite human beings in the world can look so identical on paper."
The issue here is Giuliani is big talk when it comes to the economy and government spending, but his plan in NYC will never work for the federal government.
"So what do you prefer, American voter, the guy who has a bold plan for controlling spending that is never going to work, or the one who would not say anything specific if you waterboarded him?
Welcome to campaign 2008."
I find it funny that even years after the tragedy that is September 11th, Rudy is still trying to use it as a political crutch and that one day (soon) it will catch up to him and he just may have to have some real plans for the country.
And now that is campaign is off and running, many things about Giuliani are catching up to him. Like, the fact that his speeches center around two towers falling, for example. Also, the fact that he is a confused version of a Republican is not helping his image with either party. "the prospect seemed a long shot for a Republican who supported abortion rights and restrictions on gun sales."
Let's now run through the list of things he has going against him.
1. He's a Republican.
1b. He's a supporter of Bush.
1c. He's a supporter of Bush's Iraq war policy.
2. His appearance on Saturday Night Live in drag (Rudina? really Rudy?)
3. Weak personal life. (he has been married 3 times and his children don't seem to like him much. If his own kids don't even know if they will vote for him, why would we?)
4. He's Roman Catholic.
With that, I'll leave with a lesson from Family Guy: when you're making a speech, don't talk about the issues or the changes you'll make. Just say words that will bring in the crowd. For instance: terrorism. 9/11. war. threat. In reality, it works for speeches -- but not for elections.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Firemen looking into the air
Before I begin, I must draw attention to the fact that the title of this chapter is "Other Types of Basic Stories" and the picture associated with this is... firemen looking into space. Maybe they're looking at a pole, but why this is, nobody knows.
Anyway, crime stories. Hard to prepare for, obviously, because crimes are not planned.. at least not that journalists are privy to. Sources for this story come from police (the most official way to get the info), victims (the most uncomfortable to get info), and witnesses (the most inaccurate way to get info). So, for example: what happened? what did you see? was anything unusual? personal information about people involved, and results of anything that went down. Then, check the morgue (figurative morgue in the news office, not real morgue unless absolutely necessary). Accident and fire stories go along the same path, but there may be more news value in them if they affect the community. Court stories just remind me of the scene from "All the president's men" where Robert Redford goes to court for the Watergate scandal information.
Carrying on, court stories are typically follow-ups to other stories (like the crime story about the crime they committed). The terms and actions in courts can be difficult, though, so only someone like Robert Redford should go in blind.
Crime stories work as a clear depiction of what happened when you tell it in chronological order. With this and court stories, accuracy is vital. One slip-up and the public panics or someone innocent gets blamed.
The book goes on to explain court room procedures and terms that I'll never understand.
Also important is court laws. For example, the press has a right to be there in certain circumstances. Unless you have a gag order, report on it fully. Also, like in CSI and Law and Order, the press gets a bad reputation. If you press officials and cops about what happened, they're going to want to tell you less and less.
Anyway, crime stories. Hard to prepare for, obviously, because crimes are not planned.. at least not that journalists are privy to. Sources for this story come from police (the most official way to get the info), victims (the most uncomfortable to get info), and witnesses (the most inaccurate way to get info). So, for example: what happened? what did you see? was anything unusual? personal information about people involved, and results of anything that went down. Then, check the morgue (figurative morgue in the news office, not real morgue unless absolutely necessary). Accident and fire stories go along the same path, but there may be more news value in them if they affect the community. Court stories just remind me of the scene from "All the president's men" where Robert Redford goes to court for the Watergate scandal information.
Carrying on, court stories are typically follow-ups to other stories (like the crime story about the crime they committed). The terms and actions in courts can be difficult, though, so only someone like Robert Redford should go in blind.
Crime stories work as a clear depiction of what happened when you tell it in chronological order. With this and court stories, accuracy is vital. One slip-up and the public panics or someone innocent gets blamed.
The book goes on to explain court room procedures and terms that I'll never understand.
Also important is court laws. For example, the press has a right to be there in certain circumstances. Unless you have a gag order, report on it fully. Also, like in CSI and Law and Order, the press gets a bad reputation. If you press officials and cops about what happened, they're going to want to tell you less and less.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Writing, Law, and MUCH MORE!
Many readings for this week, so where shall we begin?
The Book, that's where. Chapter 8: Writing to be read.
Quite simple really... write so that people may want to actually read what you have to say. What makes your opinion so great and important? Prove it. The example of Barbara Ehrenreich is actually pretty good because the book that I've read impressed me. She not only investigated poverty and the minimum wage in our country, but she also lived it. She worked a few jobs under minimum wage and learned what it was like to live on a few dollars an hour in tough jobs. This, in their example, is good reporting which leads to good writing. In her case, she lived it, so she knew the material she was writing about incredibly well. All advice here makes sense: be clear, be precise, etc. But the real thing, especially in feature writing, is the "show don't tell". Readers have to know what you are trying to get across to them, and the best way to do that is show it to them.
Chapter 22: Law. Don't commit libel. If you do, and you're sued or something, the book offers ways to defend yourself. If you're telling the truth, you have to be able to prove it. If it involves the government, privilege is another defense that a journalist can use by saying the information was government privilege. the actual malice test is basically a way to win if you can show that you intended no harm by saying what you did. Invasion of privacy will never be a problem for me because I definitely do not plan on trespassing on people's property to get a story. I simply don't want to know what the mother thinks about her son's arrest that badly.
George Orwell's "politics and the English language" was actually sort of interesting. Orwell talks about how because we have dumb thoughts, our speech comes out dumb... and vice versa. Many metaphors are now being used without any real knowledge of their meaning. Some people use big words simply because they sound intelligent, but have no knowledge as to what they mean or why they use them. He calls this "pretentious diction", which I like. He says to use the active when it's possible and to avoid the passive and to cut words out wherever possible. However, the next reading contradicts some of this.
In "five characteristics of scholarly prose" we are told to emphasize nouns rather than verbs (Why?) and use static verbs rather than action verbs (no??). My favorite is this: "The simple use of passive voice does not make a style academic - but it helps!" Wow... really? Why would one read a paper with all static and passive verbs? Wasn't the point of chapter 8 to "write to be read?" I doubt anyone would read what this paper advises me to write.
Lastly, the Three Mile Island disaster paper was about how the press handled the fiasco. I found it interesting how a good 500 people were covering the story at one point. And yet, the coverage was mostly by AP and a few media outlets. the New York Times alone had 8 reporters on the story. the story's importance was mostly in the "so what?" and the "what if?" emphasis about them. This is why the story was so huge.
The Book, that's where. Chapter 8: Writing to be read.
Quite simple really... write so that people may want to actually read what you have to say. What makes your opinion so great and important? Prove it. The example of Barbara Ehrenreich is actually pretty good because the book that I've read impressed me. She not only investigated poverty and the minimum wage in our country, but she also lived it. She worked a few jobs under minimum wage and learned what it was like to live on a few dollars an hour in tough jobs. This, in their example, is good reporting which leads to good writing. In her case, she lived it, so she knew the material she was writing about incredibly well. All advice here makes sense: be clear, be precise, etc. But the real thing, especially in feature writing, is the "show don't tell". Readers have to know what you are trying to get across to them, and the best way to do that is show it to them.
Chapter 22: Law. Don't commit libel. If you do, and you're sued or something, the book offers ways to defend yourself. If you're telling the truth, you have to be able to prove it. If it involves the government, privilege is another defense that a journalist can use by saying the information was government privilege. the actual malice test is basically a way to win if you can show that you intended no harm by saying what you did. Invasion of privacy will never be a problem for me because I definitely do not plan on trespassing on people's property to get a story. I simply don't want to know what the mother thinks about her son's arrest that badly.
George Orwell's "politics and the English language" was actually sort of interesting. Orwell talks about how because we have dumb thoughts, our speech comes out dumb... and vice versa. Many metaphors are now being used without any real knowledge of their meaning. Some people use big words simply because they sound intelligent, but have no knowledge as to what they mean or why they use them. He calls this "pretentious diction", which I like. He says to use the active when it's possible and to avoid the passive and to cut words out wherever possible. However, the next reading contradicts some of this.
In "five characteristics of scholarly prose" we are told to emphasize nouns rather than verbs (Why?) and use static verbs rather than action verbs (no??). My favorite is this: "The simple use of passive voice does not make a style academic - but it helps!" Wow... really? Why would one read a paper with all static and passive verbs? Wasn't the point of chapter 8 to "write to be read?" I doubt anyone would read what this paper advises me to write.
Lastly, the Three Mile Island disaster paper was about how the press handled the fiasco. I found it interesting how a good 500 people were covering the story at one point. And yet, the coverage was mostly by AP and a few media outlets. the New York Times alone had 8 reporters on the story. the story's importance was mostly in the "so what?" and the "what if?" emphasis about them. This is why the story was so huge.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The Church Rejects the Republicans?
During Kerry's campaign in 2004, the archbishop Raymond Burke refused to give communion to the senator. Now, he's speaking out about Rudy Giuliani.
This candidate is not only Republican, but Catholic as well. Kerry was a Democrat, which would probably explain by itself why the church may not like him and his way of thinking. But Giuliani is a Catholic - practicing or not. His reputation precedes him as maybe not such a nice guy. However, do priests in high positions have the right to deny worship to people they don't agree with? Wouldn't that be mostly everybody?
In terms of my own background knowledge, Catholic priests typically do not give communion to non-Catholics. This isn't an insult necessarily, it's really just tradition. If any Christian or non-Catholic would go to Catholic mass, they would just not get communion as they would in their own place of worship.
Int his case, the archbishop has decided to deny communion to those politicians with policies he does not agree with. So with him, it's less about the religious traditions so much as the political thoughts of people. Which definitely falls into mixing church with state.
It is a bit of a stretch, obviously, but does this guy have the right to deny someone from their worship just because they favor the death penalty or abortion rights?
Giuliani responded to the archbishop by saying that this country has freedom of religion and the religious leader can say what he wants. The problem is, that this implies that religious leaders can have the freedom to do other things- like the preacher who decided to marry homosexual couples. Dangerous? Maybe.
But what is the real harm in priests choosing to deny Catholic members of the church who simply disagree with politics of the church leaders. The politics specifically with Giuliani - abortion rights.
Quick history lesson: many think that the Catholic church has always been against abortion. Not true.
Early in the church, abortion was okay. It was at one point preferred. Under Pope Innocent III, abortions were fine as long as the fetus made no movement yet. If it was early enough, the baby was not a "soul" and therefore there was no killing. It is interesting to note that this case was actually of a monk who wanted his lover to get an abortion.
Soon after they made very specific rules about how late it was okay to get an abortion. All in all, very early in the church abortion was officially tolerated by the Vatican. It was not until the 17th century that abortion became "murder".
So, now that the archbishop Raymond Burke doesn't want politicians who believe differently about abortions, how far are they taking this?
This candidate is not only Republican, but Catholic as well. Kerry was a Democrat, which would probably explain by itself why the church may not like him and his way of thinking. But Giuliani is a Catholic - practicing or not. His reputation precedes him as maybe not such a nice guy. However, do priests in high positions have the right to deny worship to people they don't agree with? Wouldn't that be mostly everybody?
In terms of my own background knowledge, Catholic priests typically do not give communion to non-Catholics. This isn't an insult necessarily, it's really just tradition. If any Christian or non-Catholic would go to Catholic mass, they would just not get communion as they would in their own place of worship.
Int his case, the archbishop has decided to deny communion to those politicians with policies he does not agree with. So with him, it's less about the religious traditions so much as the political thoughts of people. Which definitely falls into mixing church with state.
It is a bit of a stretch, obviously, but does this guy have the right to deny someone from their worship just because they favor the death penalty or abortion rights?
Giuliani responded to the archbishop by saying that this country has freedom of religion and the religious leader can say what he wants. The problem is, that this implies that religious leaders can have the freedom to do other things- like the preacher who decided to marry homosexual couples. Dangerous? Maybe.
But what is the real harm in priests choosing to deny Catholic members of the church who simply disagree with politics of the church leaders. The politics specifically with Giuliani - abortion rights.
Quick history lesson: many think that the Catholic church has always been against abortion. Not true.
Early in the church, abortion was okay. It was at one point preferred. Under Pope Innocent III, abortions were fine as long as the fetus made no movement yet. If it was early enough, the baby was not a "soul" and therefore there was no killing. It is interesting to note that this case was actually of a monk who wanted his lover to get an abortion.
Soon after they made very specific rules about how late it was okay to get an abortion. All in all, very early in the church abortion was officially tolerated by the Vatican. It was not until the 17th century that abortion became "murder".
So, now that the archbishop Raymond Burke doesn't want politicians who believe differently about abortions, how far are they taking this?
Monday, October 1, 2007
An anti-feminists vote for Romney
Mitt Romney, the token Mormon candidate in this coming election, got a surprising hit on Youtube recently with the clip of "romney's girls" as a response to "Obama's Girl". In an attack ad, the Romney girls attack Obama Girl for flip-flopping and not sticking to her... beliefs?
Seriously? Her beliefs? Her sway of the vote is really enough of a deal that we're making an attack ad out of it? Not only is the video ridiculous, but it's approved by... yes, that's right, 3 random blondes. This takes the completely worthless Obama video and doubles the catastrophe by giving it enough attention to attack it.
What is in this video? Nothing important... at all. News and TV clippings of how Obama Girl's idea wasn't original? Really? Who cares if it was original... and who is really fact checking? Then they claim that she hasn't decided who she is really going to vote for. She is a flip flopper. Yes, in Congress this may be dangerous... but a random girl off the streets who made a Youtube video? We're really going to attack her for not knowing who she will vote for in over a year? Okay, so far this has some sort of research to it. Oh, wait. Then throw in a clip from her on HOWARD STERN and in a bikini. Yes, let's really lend to her credibility.
So what does Mormon Mitt Romney say about this?
"'There’s nothing like getting a good spot on YouTube.'" (msnbc.com)
Ohh yes, that's publicity for you. Three blondes in tank tops saying that another chick is wrong. That really lends to Romney's character. To fully reduce this whole fiasco to ridiculousness...
"Then he made one of his charming asides about how he needs to get his wife Ann to stop putting on those 'hot pants.'" (msnbc.com)
Okay, so not only is Romney giving this fake fight legitimacy, he chooses to play along. Of all the candidates, Mitt Romney, Mormon from Massachusetts, is playing along. At least Obama has the sense not to get involved in this ludicrous situation. And it truly helps that on real network news choose to give it real air time, about how they question Obama's Girl's "integrity."
So the idea of putting a girl in a bikini from Youtube to the TV screen?
NONE WHATSOEVER.
What are they thinking? This is the kind of thing they need to ignore, they make a bigger deal out of. And Fox News' congratulated Romney for getting the publicity and the appeal to a demographic for his campaign.
Here's my question: what is this demographic?
18-24 year-old males, in college or reading Playboy, and searching Youtube under keywords like: "hot chicks".
All in all... Romney is attracting the college guys now so consider HIM a major force to reckon with.
Even the girls admit to the fact that they have no credibility, all they know is that the candidates are "like, cute and stuff", and that they don't really care so much.
So why do we?
Seriously? Her beliefs? Her sway of the vote is really enough of a deal that we're making an attack ad out of it? Not only is the video ridiculous, but it's approved by... yes, that's right, 3 random blondes. This takes the completely worthless Obama video and doubles the catastrophe by giving it enough attention to attack it.
What is in this video? Nothing important... at all. News and TV clippings of how Obama Girl's idea wasn't original? Really? Who cares if it was original... and who is really fact checking? Then they claim that she hasn't decided who she is really going to vote for. She is a flip flopper. Yes, in Congress this may be dangerous... but a random girl off the streets who made a Youtube video? We're really going to attack her for not knowing who she will vote for in over a year? Okay, so far this has some sort of research to it. Oh, wait. Then throw in a clip from her on HOWARD STERN and in a bikini. Yes, let's really lend to her credibility.
So what does Mormon Mitt Romney say about this?
"'There’s nothing like getting a good spot on YouTube.'" (msnbc.com)
Ohh yes, that's publicity for you. Three blondes in tank tops saying that another chick is wrong. That really lends to Romney's character. To fully reduce this whole fiasco to ridiculousness...
"Then he made one of his charming asides about how he needs to get his wife Ann to stop putting on those 'hot pants.'" (msnbc.com)
Okay, so not only is Romney giving this fake fight legitimacy, he chooses to play along. Of all the candidates, Mitt Romney, Mormon from Massachusetts, is playing along. At least Obama has the sense not to get involved in this ludicrous situation. And it truly helps that on real network news choose to give it real air time, about how they question Obama's Girl's "integrity."
So the idea of putting a girl in a bikini from Youtube to the TV screen?
NONE WHATSOEVER.
What are they thinking? This is the kind of thing they need to ignore, they make a bigger deal out of. And Fox News' congratulated Romney for getting the publicity and the appeal to a demographic for his campaign.
Here's my question: what is this demographic?
18-24 year-old males, in college or reading Playboy, and searching Youtube under keywords like: "hot chicks".
All in all... Romney is attracting the college guys now so consider HIM a major force to reckon with.
Even the girls admit to the fact that they have no credibility, all they know is that the candidates are "like, cute and stuff", and that they don't really care so much.
So why do we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)