ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on December 28, 2011

Isn't that the question?

A short while ago, President Barack Obama signed into law a jobs act for jobless veterans to be given work, particularly, by the private sector.

The law has a tax credit incentive provision for employers to hire those coming home from the Iraq and the Afghanistan wars.

He has been going round the country stressing that their service has been invaluable to the country and therefore they must be appreciated and given work, especially by companies that needed to train more staff.

Just this morning, another headline appeared in Fox News, saying that another Democrat, Sen. Michael Bennet was doing the same thing, only in a slightly different way.

"Our troops are coming home and we need to be ready," Sen. Michael Bennet had said. "He has proposed legislation to create a National Veterans Foundation that would operate much like the National Parks Foundation already does.", the Fox News subsequent article has continued.

However, there was no mention of president Obama, and thus making the initiative of getting veterans back to work to look like it was just the Senator's idea. It (article) was more or less indicating that there was no unity in the Democratic Party, or was it a "one up-manship" that was at play within the party. People were free to guess.

The point here was that, credit was being given to one of the persons making it easy for veterans to become employed, while the other person, who has even started the effort, was being totally ignored.

The Fox News channel has programs solely designed to discredit Obama in person and his administration in particular; and there would not be any need to name any of those programs, but their collective aim has missed its target, as the public has been aware, right from the start, that he (Obama) has not created the economic mess that the country now found itself in.

He has inherited it from a Republican administration, and that he was making every effort to recoup what the United States has lost by ending the Iraq war and drawing down on troops in Afghanistan, where the perpetrators of 9/11 attacks on New York City and Washington D.C., had come from.

Journalists were supposed to be impartial, as well as objective, in their dealings; however, to slight Obama in any way at a time, when he was making a bid for a second term in office was not "fair, balanced and unafraid."

The 2012 general election pivoted on whether the opportunities in American society would be open to all, or if the old idea of a few having it all, in lieu of the many, as the conservatives were clamoring for. The "let the rich be richer, and the poor to fend for themselves" ideology, to remain.

Americans were going to vote, not just for a president, but also for the direction it should go in the future, and to make life's chances equal for all, from every perspective.

Therefore, for a section of the media to be one sided politically, or to be advocating on behalf of only one party would be unfair to the people.

They, the people, should be allowed to make a choice, and not the talking heads on television. For them to sway or seduce the people in any form or fashion would be atrocious.

In other words, the media should permit the people to make that choice out of their own free volition.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Deni Edwards profile image

      Deni Edwards 6 years ago from california

      Gotta love the fair and balanced Fox News. How unfortunate that millions of Americans are so misguided and the truth is skewed--slightly or massively.

    • puter_dr profile image

      Mike Bouska 6 years ago from Midwest USA

      I always laugh when I see that Fair and Balanced graphic.