Frankly, in 2010 in America – that’s disgusting.

I’ll be watching the speech on FOX News and probably listening to their post-Address wrap up and thoughts. The reason why I choose FOX News is because they will at least bring on both Democrats and Republicans to give their points of view. While their standard slate of commentators (note – commentators) tend to lean to the right on most issues, at least I know that by watching FOX News I’ll be able to hear both sides of the story and that I’ll have a greater chance of getting a news person acting as a fair and impartial arbiter of the discussion. You can’t find that on MSNBC or CNN (though CNN has come a long way).

As for the speech itself, let me turn to the Asbury Park Press which published an article today that said the following:

It has been widely reported that Obama will announce programs aimed at the middle class on issues such as student loans. However, those measures will have limited appeal if unemployment remains high.

“He can do all he wants on college loans. But for those in dire straits, he has to go farther,” Greenberg said.

FYI – David Greenberg is an associate professor of history at Rutgers University. I’m interested to hear what Obama has to say about student loans. Those of you who frequent this blog know that I write about my student loans – a lot (see yesterday’s post). While I have created a plan of my own to repay this debt, by doing so I am effectively taking myself out of the for-sale housing market for the next two years.

Now, a few years ago I would say that I was an extreme example of how student loan debt could possibly hurt and stifle the middle class economy. Today, however, I think there are a lot more people in my situation (albeit at lower dollar amounts) than people may think. Sure, one guy in New Jersey who is handcuffed by six figure student loans is an extreme example of how one person can’t contribute to the economy’s recover…but when you multiply that times let’s say one person in each state, you now have 50 people that aren’t contributing. Then when you consider that there might be 10 people in each state in this situation (a likely figure), now you’re at 500 people that have good paying jobs, but cannot contribute to the economic rebound. Up that to maybe 1,000 people per state (again, not unreasonable when you consider the total population) and now you have 50,000 people not participating.

Simple math: 50,000 people x $250,000 (cost of each person buying one home) = $12,500,000,000 in new home sales

That’s a lot of zeroes, huh? And those are just numbers that I’m pulling out of the air. I’m confident that there are more than 50,000 college graduates who are stifled by their student loan debt and I’m sure that people would be buying more/other things besides new homes – like new cars, clothing, electronics, etc.

Also from the Asbury Park Press:

Recent Republican victories have been attributed in part to economic issues, with unemployment in double digits.

“The challenge is to frame a policy to create jobs, while cutting the deficit,” said Joseph Patten, an associate professor of political science at Monmouth University.

“Traditionally, you stimulate the economy by spending more. It’s difficult to do that when you have a spending freeze,” Patten said.

I had to include Dr. Patten in this entry because he used to be one of my Professors at Monmouth and the guy knows what he’s talking about. I wouldn’t want the task set before President Obama – find a way to generate new jobs while cutting the deficit and still finding a way to appease your ultra-liberal base by spending more money on more programs. Good grief!

Let’s see what Obama has to say tonight.

The Associated Press and CNN are calling Republican challenger Chris Christie the winner of the New Jersey governor’s race, based on exit polling.

The actual results are still pretty close: Christie’s ahead 49% to 44% with 81% of the precincts reporting. But Christie is doing extremely well in Republican strongholds in Ocean, Monmouth, Morris and Somerset counties, while holding his own against Gov. Jon Cozine in key swing counties, including Bergen and Middlesex counties.

Christie would become the first Republican to win statewide office since Christie Whitman, who also defeated an incumbent Democrat, Jim Florio.

And there you have it. Republican voters in New Jersey have had enough of dealing with the cross-talking and ultra-liberal Jon Corzine and he’s lost his job because of it.

There is a lot to write about this particular issue. I could write about how one of my liberal professors is touting the White House’s opposition to FOX News strictly on ideological grounds. One could also write about how Chris Wallace from FOX News Sunday hit the nail directly on the head when he suggested that this White House is filled with a bunch of crybabies. Or one could write about how other news stations are sticking up for FOX. In fact, directly from that New York Times article comes this:

In a sign of discomfort with the White House stance, Fox’s television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Tuesday to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg that was to be conducted with a “pool” camera crew shared by all the networks. That followed a pointed question at a White House briefing this week by Jake Tapper, an ABC News correspondent, about the administration’s treatment of “one of our sister organizations.”

Pretty respectable for the competition to honor the unfair treatment that FOX News has been receiving, huh?

However, I want to focus on two things regarding this issue – the White House’s intentional blur between what is news and what is opinion on FOX News and the game that the White House is playing with FOX News.

First, anyone who studies media or watches a great deal of CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News while reading a diversity of newspapers can tell you that there are only so many ways a company can report a story. When a tornado hits Kansas, you don’t often hear FOX News reporters saying, “A tornado hit Kansas today and the lousy liberals are to blame.” Just like you don’t hear any legitimate reporter on MSNBC blaming conservatives for acts of God. When it comes down to reporting events from around the world, you’re going to read or watch the same report no matter where you go.

However, when it comes to commentary, you’re going to get a divergent approach to “reporting.” Bill O’Reilly calls himself a “humble correspondent.” That’s part of his approach to opinion journalism and there is nothing wrong with that at all! O’Reilly takes a very traditional view on the issues, but that’s okay because he’s hosting a program that is rooted in commentary. Glenn Beck has a staunchly libertarian point of view. Now, those who are not well-versed in political ideology would suggest that Beck is a conservative, but he’s not. So the next time you hear a mass media report or read in a newspaper that Beck is a conservative, then you need to second guess that source of news. Sean Hannity, on the other hand, is a hardcore conservative and there’s nothing wrong with that, either.

FOX News clearly labels these programs as commentary and anyone who knows anything about social interaction beyond “Hello, my name is…” can tell that these programs are NOT news-based! The White House isn’t filled with dummies, they understand that these programs are opinion programs. However, their strategy is to lump the legitimate news departments in with these opinion programs to paint FOX News with a broad, anti-liberal, anti-Obama brush. They know that by doing this, there will be a certain percentage of the population that completely agrees with them and will eventually take over this fight now that it has been brought up at a higher level. It’s a shame that such easily influenced, non-critical thinking people exist to do the White House’s prolonged dirty work.

My second point is that the White House actually managed to do something that they hadn’t been able to do up until they began attacking FOX News, i.e. get the FOX News commentators to STOP digging into the backgrounds of Obama’s staff. Think about it. Glenn Beck single-handedly led to Van Jones’ downfall, which opened up the door for other media organizations to wonder what they had missed out on (read the New York Times article linked above). This, frankly, scared the hell out of the White House and led to them attacking FOX News. If the media is covering itself, then they’re NOT digging into the people who maybe shouldn’t be sitting around the table with the President, right?

Hopefully, people will begin to notice this on a large scale and begin to demand that their White House stop engaging in partisan attacks on the media and, instead, get back to the job of running this country.

However, there is a lot of rhetoric out in the political sphere right now about the possibility of raising taxes on the very population that President Obama promised not to raise taxes on. Let’s listen to our friends at CNN…

I don’t buy the clarification offered by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. I think that both Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers aren’t skilled in the growing level of doublespeak in this administration. In other words, the further they get from being at President Obama’s side, the more we can expect them to tell us what’s really going on.

It’s scary. President Obama needs to tread lightly on this subject because if he raises taxes – even temporarily – on the middle class, he can kiss the majority in the House and Senate goodbye. Americans don’t like to be lied to. Let’s all hope that President Obama keeps this promise.

However, the writer makes an interesting point:

E-mails and text messages and BlackBerrys and all their digital cousins may have given us the illusion of freedom — we tell ourselves that we are unfettered by traditional offices, that we can go anywhere we please — yet in the end they have created a nation of Robert Hylands. We’re never off the clock; that cell phone may ring at dinnertime, that allegedly urgent e-mail may arrive at 11 p.m., that instant message from the regional manager may pop onto the screen when we’re on vacation with our families.

Like almost everyone else who works in a professional setting these days, I have a way of accessing my e-mails from my “home office” (which consists of a desk in the corner of my bedroom and two bookshelves on the side of the desk). And the truth is that when I get home from work, aside from my Yahoo and Gmail e-mail accounts, I also open up my work e-mail account. On a typical day, there are two or three e-mails delivered to my work inbox during the hour long commute home. Sometimes those e-mails are urgent, but most of the time they aren’t pressing at all. Yet, I still have to look.

It’s the ease of the access that’s the problem; the fact that you can access this information in the blink of an eye and that, generally, the information contained in the e-mail can be processed quickly. That’s the problem. That’s why I check my work e-mail as soon as I get home and frequently while I’m at home.

The next big problem is the integration of BlackBerry phones and other smart phones into the work day. One of the reasons that I initially purchased my Treo 700p (the “p” stands for “piece of garbage”) was so that I could access my work e-mail from anywhere. However, once I realized that this meant I would always be connected to the office and once I realized that I essentially didn’t need a smart phone because I was never so far away from a computer that I couldn’t check my e-mail, I turned off the internet on my phone. Turning off the internet turns off the ability to be constantly connected.

However, I do find it interesting that with all of the advances in smart phone technology that I’m already planning for my next phone to be a BlackBerry. I’m on the Verizon Wireless network, but I refuse to pay Verizon Wireless for access to the internet when I already pay my cable company for access and when my office has wi-fi access. So I’m waiting for a wi-fi enabled BlackBerry phone to be available on the Verizon Wireless network before I get a new phone. In essence, I’m preparing to be constantly connected to the office when I really don’t want to be. But I digress…

Most of my co-workers are wrapped up into this “always connected” thing, too. It’s not uncommon for an e-mail to be sent after 5:00pm and for a response to come back around 8:30pm. Frankly, I think that it’s nice that some of the lagging issues that we deal with at the office can come to a conclusion after hours – after we’ve all had some time to process different solutions. However, I think we’ve all subconsciously begun to cut back on the amount of after hours work that we’re performing for the company.

And, honestly, cutting back on after hours work is probably the best thing for today’s worker. When you consider all of the stresses that are wrapped into simply having a job there is little reason to want to bring any of that back to your home with you. The home should and can be the refuge – if we let it.

And in their article they made the following suggestion:

Since the beginning of March, CNN has fallen behind both the longtime ratings leader, Fox News Channel, which, as the voice of disaffected conservatives, again has an imposing lead, and the upstart MSNBC, which has tried to mirror Fox’s success by steering to the left.

CNN has even dipped behind its sister network HLN (formerly Headline News) on many occasions. Since the beginning of 2009, CNN has finished fourth in prime time among the cable news networks on 35 out of 84 weeknights.

The development raises an obvious question: With its rivals stoking prime time with high-octane political opinion and rant, can CNN compete effectively with a formula of news delivered more or less straight?

Alright, there are a couple of things here that need to be addressed and I’m annoyed that they need to be addressed because I’d prefer to comment on the actual article’s content, not the worldview of The New York Times. First of all, FOX News is not in the lead because it is the voice of disaffected conservatives (in fact, most studies show that more than half of their viewership consists of independent and democratic voters). It is in the lead for a variety of reasons, the biggest of which is that they’ve managed to successfully marry entertainment and news as well as entertainment and commentary.

No one can watch Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, or Greta Van Susteren and suggest that they are not in the midst of some type of performance. O’Reilly has the American Culture quiz, for Pete’s sake! Hannity has the Great American Panel which introduces an X-Factor (usually an entertainer) into the show plus he’s got that Liberal Translator thing which is clearly a form of entertainment. And Van Susteren is constantly jumping out of planes or throwing out first pitches, plus she’s put together two new segments at the end of her show called “Best of the Rest” and “Last Call” to get people staying tuned. And I’m fine with all of this stuff because these shows are commentary and should show some personality. Nothing wrong with that on FOX or any other cable news channel.

My next problem with the view presented by The New York Times is the idea that MSNBC is an upstart company. Are you kidding me? They were a failed cable news outlet before FOX News was even an idea! The biggest problem on MSNBC right now is the unchecked hatred that they allow to spew on their airwaves, not that they have competition from CNN or FOX News. The difference between CNN and FOX News and the folks over at MSNBC is that they allow completely absurd statements to be made without a strong counterpoint. You absolutely will not find that on O’Reilly’s FOX News show, political leanings aside.

The other problem at MSNBC is talent. Who the hell wants to watch Keith Olberman? The man is a failed ESPN broadcaster and MSNBC gives him his own show? What’s next? The Money Hour with Bernie Madoff? Give me a break.

And the problem with CNN is that they cannot fathom that their opinions are anything other than 100% correct and middle of the road. Look, CNN leans left; not hard-left or hateful like MSNBC, but they do lean left. And the thing is – they don’t get it. For example, I posted a few days ago about that crazy woman reporter from CNN that attended one of the tea parties and was so self-centered that she claimed the tea parties were anti-CNN! Ha! Can you imagine that?!

I’ve seen FOX News reporters go into rallies that truly WERE anti-FOX News and present a set of fair questions to the protesters. Maybe the best thing for CNN, MSNBC, and even The New York Times to do is sit down and actually watch a few hours of FOX News for a change.

Update: The real, straight shooting numbers on who is really winning (“hammering the competition” is more like it) in the ratings war are available at NewsMax.com.

Of all the reports that struck me, the one that made me go wide-eyed the most was the one of the woman from CNN who claimed that she was being harassed at the tea party which was anti-tax and, “anti-CNN.” Anti-CNN? Really? If you watch the video, you’ll notice that this woman was being rude and arrogant to the people in the crowd – not letting them finish answers to her questions and cutting them off. Frankly, she was being an all-around asshole. The term “self-important bitch” comes to mind when I watch the video. And for those of you who suggest that she had every right to berate the guy with the anti-Obama sign remember two things. First, she’s a journalist and what she believes is best saved for an op-ed, not a news report. Second, this same woman attended a parade a few years ago held by those on the far left of the political spectrum and laughed and condoned an image of President George W. Bush as Adolf Hitler.

Fair and balanced? Definitely not so on CNN.

As she was saying this I couldn’t help but think of that episode of Family Guy where Peter secedes from the union and founds the country of Petoria. At one point during the episode, Tom Tucker is reporting live from the scene and starts saying how bad it was and how it was a full-out war between the United States and Petoria…then the camera pans towards him and you see him making the gunfire noises with plastic bubble paper and rocket noises with a slide whistle! It seems that the fictional Tom Tucker and the real world “reporter” from CNN went to the same journalism school!

Anyway, the Constitution Party came out with an e-mail to those on its e-mail list saying the following:

We suggest you now send your emails to CNN Executive Vice President Ken Jautz : ken.jautz@cnn.com and Philip Kent, the Chairman and CEO of CNN: phil.kent@turner.com

Let Susan’s boss know you’re not going to let off the hook a left-wing activist with a mic who was denouncing a legitimate and honest political movement by hard working Americans. Remind the CNN honchos that there were close to one million attendees at the tea parties.

Now, I normally don’t go putting up these types of e-mails on this blog, but I think that this particular message has some resounding value. It’s really ridiculous that CNN would put such a biased, arrogant report on the air. I was one of the many people who moved away from FOX News’ coverage of the Presidential campaign and over to CNN because they just had better coverage this year. However, now that I see such blatant bias, I really can’t stick with CNN as my “flip to” channel. It’s back to FOX News for me – where, believe it or not, they are much more “fair and balanced” than the dummies at CNN.

Kate Meinhardt felt like a clown jammed into a Volkswagen bug when she lived in a 21-square-foot room aboard a circus train.

Bungee cords crisscrossed her walls once a week to prevent an avalanche of items from raining down. A microwave, mini refrigerator, her laptop and baskets of personal items lined the dorm-like room.

Showering, going to the bathroom and even doing laundry became racing contests on the train, Meinhardt said. The 13 people on board shared one shower, two toilets and one washer and dryer.

Wow. Could you imagine living in a 21-square foot room? That’s about 4 feet by 5 feet – something like a prison cell if you ask me.

The trend towards smaller homes continues. I read an article a few months ago that talked about how people are increasingly downsizing their living spaces to save on utility bills, upkeep, and maintenance costs. Some of these people were moving into 80-square foot homes – entire homes that are only 80 square feet! It sounds crazy, but these people are doing it and doing it successfully.

I’m not looking for an 80 square foot home. I’m looking for your average home size with at least two bedrooms and at least two baths. I’d prefer a home with a yard and a finished basement, but those are what I consider to be somewhat luxury items. Of course I could just move to the Poconos and get a gigantic home for a ridiculously low price, but there are no jobs up in the Poconos…

Is there a day coming when we all live in 80 square foot homes? Doubtful, though there is definitely a day coming when we live in more energy efficient homes which are designed to take advantage of the sun’s heat and the shade provided by trees.

Anyway, check out Jersey City Locksmith for the best locksmith service in the Garden State!

Not only is that not an increased voter turnout, but it’s lower than the last election! Sure, there may be some absentee ballots that need to be counted and after a recount here and there the total number of voters in 2008 might go up a few thousand, but even if the total number of votes cast should rise some astronomical number to 125 million, that’s still NOT the bigger turnout that all of the pundits (and the politicians) expected for this election cycle.

This tells us a few things. First, there was NOT some large groundswell of voter motivation to go out and vote in the most historic election of our time. Second, if the electorate remained essentially the same, then the inherent voter apathy in America was not changed in this election (which is a damn shame). Third, those who voted in 2004 and then voted again in 2008 must have been more likely to be open to the idea of voting for a different party. Remember, McCain only lost by about 7 points (or about 8 million votes).

While that is a significant number of voters, let’s hope that history remembers this election in a realistic view. Yes, 2008 was an historic election for any number of reasons – but not for bringing out more voters to the polls or energizing the electorate.

Let me rephrase that last comment. America’s citizens have, by-and-large, moved BEYOND living in a society where the color of one’s skin decides whether or not they can advance in society. Finally – FINALLY – we might be in a post-racial society where a man or woman is judged by the content of their character and not their race. For my liberal-minded friends out there – this is what Martin Luther King, Jr’s dream was all about! And for my conservative-minded friends out there – imagine a world where affirmative action is taken off of the bargaining table due to its inherent racism and anti-lower-to-middle-class white leanings.

I distinctly remember bringing this issue up about 4 years ago in Graduate School and using Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as my examples. Here are guys who made their entire careers off of the black vs. white conflict – real (Abner Louima) or imagined (the Duke case). Let’s hope to God that these two men are put out of business because America is now in a post-racial society.

With Republicans voting for Obama, whites voting for Obama, a woman earning 47% of the national vote for Vice-President, a black man winning the Presidency…it appears that it is finally time for us to move away from the race and gender-based issues of the 1900’s and get involved in some of the major issues of OUR time. The environment, sustainable living, quality education, American-style capitalism in a global market, advancing math and science in America, etc, etc. These are the types of changes that America has wanted not just for 8 years, but for decades.

We don’t want to rehash the same, tired arguments about the color of our skin any more. Enough is enough. In fact, a large number of the 2008 electorate (myself included) have existed on this planet for almost three decades while not ever caring about the race of our friends and colleagues. It’s nice to see that America has finally caught up!

Now how long until the old-fashioned news media concocts some story about how America is as racist as ever?!?