23 April 2009

Doug Williams

 

The Parade Deck News Blog

If you can read this thank a teacher. If you can read this in English thank a veteran.

Thought for the day…

 

If there is any principal of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principal of free thought,-not free thought for those who agree with us but the freedom for the thought that we hate. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes JR.

 

The Parade Deck News Blog mourns the passing of Officer Terry Adams, of the Tifton Police Department, Georgia. Officer Adams was responding to a call with his lights and siren on. A pickup truck pulling out of a shopping center collided with Officer Adam’s motorcycle. Officer Adams is survived by his wife and four children. For information on how to help Officer Adams family contact the Tifton Police Department at 229-382-3132, or visit the odmp website at www.odmp.org

 

Mainstream Media Negligent In Its Duties

 

    The media is an important tool of a democracy. It has a responsibility to report news events fairly,
accurately, and without prejudice. No matter how distasteful a media outlet finds a position it has an obligation to professionally cover a story. If it fails to do so the outlet not only violates the public trust, it undermines free speech and it is guilty of negligence of its duties. When a group of outlets exhibit the same behavior they not only undermine free speech but they destroy their credibility as well. Over the past year and a half criticism of the mainstream media has increased because of biased reporting.

 

In August 2008 the ombudsman (November archives the Parade Deck) for the Washington Post reported that during the Presidential election Barack Obama received three times the favorable front page coverage than John McCain did. CNN and NBC admitted that they felt that the recent Tea Party protests held across the country were not newsworthy. Both organizations actually accused Fox News of giving too much coverage on the Tea Parties.

 

    During my sophomore year in high school and my freshmen year in college I was cursed (or at least I thought I was) with an English teacher named Nelda Andrewartha. This teacher tormented me by forcing me to write on numerous subjects that I found morally or personally offensive. What I didn’t realize was that “Mrs. A” had taught me one of the basics of journalism, which is to professionally write an article without expressing your opinion.

 

    When I was a new student at the University of Alaska I was given two difficult assignments. I had to write a paper supporting the death penalty, and I had to write a paper on why abortion should remain legal. As a Catholic I support neither idea; however, thanks to the tutelage of Mrs. Andrewartha I was able to produce two well written papers that presented both sides of the issues without interjecting my opinion on either position. For the record I got an “A” on both papers

 

    In my first semester of Journalism classes I learned that the basic elements in a good news story were who, what, when where, how, and why. My professor, Edgar Blatchford, told me that if people want your opinion they’ll read an opinion column. The second lesson that I learned was that there were ethical standards in Journalism and that there were serious consequences for unethical behavior. In the past, news outlets reported stories based on the facts and expressed its opinion on an issue in a compass piece or an opinion column. So if I can write a professional article why can’t the mainstream media? What has happened to the professional stands that Journalists are expected to adhere to?

 

    Most media outlets are controlled by people with liberal ideologies. Some of the more liberal outlets are losing subscribers and viewers because of shoddy reporting-so they resort to cheap showbiz tactics in order to attract an audience. Most reporters in the industry are honest professionals that take their responsibility to the people seriously. I cannot say enough good things about Dan Rather (former CBS reporter) or Tom Brokaw of NBC.

 

There are agencies such as the Huffington Post, CNN, and NBC which is owned by General Electric who have no concept of ethical reporting. The most recent example would be the Tea Party Protests. The Huffington Post actually advertised for Citizen Journalist to infiltrate Tea Party protests and cover unruly crowd behavior. I was surprised and disappointed when Tom Brokaw allowed Janeane Garofalo to launch a hate platform against the Tea Party protesters. She went on to say that those who disagreed with the Obama administration’s policies were racist. NBC failed to produce one piece of footage that supported her claim of racism. By failing to mention disclaimers that MS. Garofalo claims about were unsubstantiated NBC leaves the public with the impression that her statements are true. I would like to believe that Brokaw’s voice in the background encouraging Ms. Garofalo’s rant was due to job preservation.

 

The most blatant misconduct during the Tea Party story was that of CNN’s. CNN’s own Susan Roesgen conduct at the Chicago Tea Party was the worst that I have ever seen. MS. Roesgen would ask questions of a gentleman who had his child with him and then interrupt him when he tried to answer her questions. During the taped interview that aired on the 16 April episode of the Glen Beck show, she berated the gentleman for being at the protest and then proceeded to tell him that his opinion was wrong. She went on to tell the gentleman how the Obama stimulus plan would affect benefit him. In other footage that was aired on CNN Ms. Roesgen was confronted by other protestors about her behavior. Ms. Roesgen quickly said that this was an anti-government, anti-CNN protest that was not news worthy and shouldn’t be viewed during the family hour.

 

You may not agree with the position of the Tea Party protesters but let’s examine the merits of the story. The Tea Party protest started with the rant of one individual about the economy on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. The protest grew into a movement that carried out nonviolent protest in 2200 cities on 15 April. The protesters were both Democrats and Republican. The stock exchange rant was worth five minutes of fame at best. The fact that the rant grew into a nonpartisan movement that played out in over 2200 cities is a story worth covering. The story should have been covered by every news agency, and it should have been given ample coverage.

 

If I had been a managing editor here’s how I would have dealt with Ms. Roesgen’s conduct. Susan Roesgen would have been fired for professional misconduct. The producer that aired the segment would also have been fired for allowing the clip on air. As managing editor, I would have personally made a public apology that same day for the poor conduct of my staff; and made it clear that CNN does not tolerate unprofessional or unethical behavior. I would have personally invited the gentleman that was the target of Ms. Roesgen’s abusive behavior onto either a morning or evening segment and allow him to state his case.

 

The media is supposed to be the public’s watchdog. It should report a story in a fair and balanced manner and allow the public to form its own opinion on an issue. The media should also promote the free exchange of ideas. It should never be allowed censor a story because of ideological differences. When the media allows free speech to be suppressed they undermine the concept of a free press.

 

I am emailing this article to people on my contact list in hopes that you will forward it to others. Even if you don’t agree with me please forward this to others so that they can make up their own mind on the issue? What can you do to help the current media crisis? Contact your local outlet and let them know how you feel. If that doesn’t work contact the outlets advertisers and tell them that they should only advertise with professional news outlets.

 

You may view my work at http://paradedeck.wordpress.com/

 

Semper Fi

 

Doug Williams

 

 

 

 

 

9 April 2009

Doug Williams

 

The Parade Deck News Blog

If you can read this thank a teacher. If you can read this in English thank a veteran.

Thought for the day…

“Life is about choices, not chances.” Lyle Sankey; Professional Rodeo Cowboy (retired), coach, and mentor.

 

The Parade Deck mourns the loss of the following officers:

Detective Allen Pearson. Lenoir County Sheriff’s Department, North Carolina. End of Watch: Tuesday 7 April 2009.

Deputy Sheriff Richard J. Stiles Jr. East Feliciana Parish Sheriff’s Department Louisiana. End of Watch: Tuesday 7 April 2009.

Police Officer Paul Sciullo III. Pittsburg Police Department, Pennsylvania. End of Watch: Saturday 4 April 2009.

Police Officer Stephen Mayhle. Pittsburg Police Department, Pennsylvania. End of Watch: Saturday 4 April 2009.

Police Officer Eric Kelly. Pittsburg Police Department, Pennsylvania. End of Watch: Saturday 4 April 2009.

Sergeant Randy White. Bridgeport Police Department, Texas. End of Watch: Thursday 2 April 2009.

 

Sound Off

By Doug Williams

 

Stock Clip Art

This is not Doug Williams

 

 

Criminal Behavior not the fault of Conservatives

    

    The weekend of 3 April was a violent one across the nation. On Friday 3 April 2009 Jiverly Wong age 41 went into the American Civic Association in Binghamton, NY and gunned down 13 people in cold blood before taking his own life. The next day in Pittsburg, PA Richard Poplawski age 22 murdered three police officers and wounded two other officers. Poplawski surrendered to police after one of his weapons jammed and he was wounded by police. On Sunday 34 year old James Harrison killed his five children ages 7-16 in a trailer park in Pierce County, Washington. Harrison then drove to a casino in neighboring King County and shot himself.

    Left wing bloggers Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic and Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos blamed Fox News’s Glenn Beck for the deaths of the officers. They claim that Beck’s commentaries about civil unrest sparked the violence. Comments on these sites also blame Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity as well for the violence because of the contents of their news programs. I’ve followed crime stories in the news since the 1970′s and it’s always amazed me how the far left will blame a criminals actions on everything but the criminals for their actions. Sure they have drug or alcohol problems, they came for broken homes, or a variety of other tough problems in their lives, but in 98% of
the cases they made a conscious decision to break the law.

    Jiverly Wong had recently lost his job, was going through a divorce, and felt that people were making fun of him for his poor command of the English language. It is obvious from the conflicting statements made by friends who said he was quiet and often helpful, and coworkers who described him as a gun obsessed loner who hated America that he was under a great deal of stress, and we may never know what actually set him off. News organizations have also unfairly taken issue with the fact that Wong practiced at the range on a weekly basis (this is an issue I will address later). Wong wrote a two page rambling letter to a Local news paper before the shooting. In short he planned these murders.

    Richard Poplawski was a neo-Nazi who had a problem with authority. He was discharged from the Marines during boot camp for assaulting his Drill Instructor. Friends and family stated that he feared that the Obama administration was planning to take away his guns. These statements were picked up by the far left kooks at the Huffington Post, the Atlantic, and the Daily Kos hence the attack on Beck and his colleagues at Fox News. It was not Glenn that made Poplawski pull the trigger. Poplawski got into an altercation with his mother because his dog urinated on the floor and she asked him to leave; he didn’t and she called the Police. Instead Poplawski made a conscious decision to set up a hasty ambush for Pittsburg Police. When his mother let the officers in Poplawski shot the officers in cold blood.

    James Harrison was an abusive and controlling husband whose wife was about to leave him, so he murdered his five children before taking his own life.

    The three people I just described were selfish antisocial people who were miserable cowards and failures in life. They wanted take as many people as possible down before taking their own live, and they wanted immortality courtesy of the media. These individuals chose to commit these cowardly acts. Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity had nothing to do with it.  The best thing that the media could do in these cases is to refuse to address these individuals by name.  When describing the motives it would be best to refer to the suspects as dirt bags, cowards, lunatics, waste of oxygen or some other adjective.  Don’t give them what they want.

.    For the record I try to maintain my proficiency with firearms on a regular basis if my schedule allows it. I am a responsible gun owner who has never thought of using a weapon in an irresponsible manner. When my whole world was turned upside down, and I went through a bad divorce I never thought of picking up a firearm and harming my former spouse and children. Instead I chose to seek out friends and family who helped me cope with major changes in my life. If anything I’m stronger for it. There are also many people like me that have stressful incidents in their lives. They own guns and they frequent ranges; but they don’t go on shooting rampages because life gets rough.

    I am sure that the anti gun lobby will use these incidents as the rally cry for more gun laws. The best thing to do is to allow cooler heads to prevail and use existing laws to prosecute offenders. The left could try something really unique like holding people accountable for their actions instead of making excuses for them. If the far left really want to do something constructive my vote would be to revamp the mental health system so that people could get the help they need before they harm themselves and/or others.

Semper Fi

Doug Williams

 

Did you know that swimming can give you a total body workout, give your body the aerobic workout it needs to lose weight, as well as protect you aging joints from damage? So what are you waiting for? Go down to your favorite store get a suit that fits and hit the water. Now that you know there are no excuses.

2 April 2009

Doug Williams

 

The Parade Deck News Blog

If you can read this thank a teacher. If you can read this in English thank a veteran.

Thought for the day…

“And above all have a fervent charity among yourselves, for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.” I Peter, Chapter IV, verse 8.

 

The Parade Deck mourns the loss of Trooper Mike Haynes of the Montana Highway Patrol, Montana. On 23 March 2009 a vehicle operated by an intoxicated driver struck his Patrol car head-on on US 93 near Kalispell, Montana. End of watch Friday, 27 March 2009.

 

Stock clip art

This is not Doug Williams

 

Sound Off

Doug’s Opinion

 

Obama’s Tax Policy Hurts Charities and the Poor

 

    It’s bad enough that charitable organizations are losing donations because of the economy; soon they will face even bigger budget short falls because of President Obama’s decision to reduce tax deductions for charitable tax deductions. The reduction is aimed at those who make more than $250,000 a year so that it will help pay for Obama’s programs. The tax hike will do little to help with the federal deficit and will only hurt charities and the poor. Some of the smaller organizations that provide a valuable service to those in need will have to close their doors because of projected budget shortfalls.

 

    Having been an officer of several charitable organizations over the years I have always been grateful for every donation I have received. As long as the money did not come from criminal activities I never cared about why the money was being donated, because I believe that the reason for giving is between the donor and the almighty.

 

    During my tenure with Mothers Against Drunk Driving in Anchorage, Alaska the economy and our chapter were going through a rough spell. We were spending a lot of money outsourcing our print jobs so that we could ramp up our membership and raise funds for our public awareness campaigns. Our solution was to purchase a copier at a cost of $8500.00. Because of the economy none of the office supply companies were able to donate the equipment, so we had to raise the money ourselves. We received donations from the middle income sector and one of the Washington chapters of M.A.D.D. but we were still about $4,000 dollars short of our goal. Near the end of the tax year several large contributors came through with the rest of the needed funds. I would like to believe that the money was donated because of a belief in our cause, but in reality the true motivation for giving was likely a tax credit. That’s ok because we were able to reach our funding goal so that we could lower our operating costs in order to better serve the community.

 

    Because of rough economic time President Barack Obama has chosen to reduce the deductions that taxpayers earning over 250,000 can take for charitable donations. President Obama believes that the wealthier 1% should pay their fair share of taxes, and rightfully they should. Some will argue that upper income taxpayers should not be allowed to use charitable donations as a tax credit. The argument is that the money used for charity could fund government entitlement programs, or that the government could give the money to charities. That sounds good in theory but in practice the theory is flawed. In order to be able to accept government funding, a charity must be willing to accept the strings that are attached to the funds.

 

    It’s good to have rules about accepting taxpayer money because of waste and fraud. Often times the government attaches such stringent rules to a charity that the funding actually undermines the charity’s mission or it severely limits the application of the funds. In the case of our copier, even if the funding had been available for capital equipment, our news letter would have been subject to government approval. The restrictions attached to the bill would not only hinder free speech, but it would make board members fearful of criticizing lawmakers out of fear of “biting the hand that feeds you.” Because our fight against drunk driving has always been an uphill battle we would be unable to accept such funding.

 

    You are probably wondering how much impact the nation’s top 2-3% wage earners have on charities. In an article written by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann on 28 March 2009, Morris points out that 4,000,000 people had adjusted incomes of $200,000 or more. The group was responsible for 3% o the tax returns, and paid 31% of tax revenue owed to the government. This same group made 44% of all charitable contributions (81 Billion Dollars) in 2008. The money went to churches that further distributed these funds to other needy causes, hospitals, universities, disease research, food banks, soup kitchens, as well as cultural institutions. Many of these donations helped with budget shortfalls that our government would not have been able to meet if they were in charge of charitable donations. Let us not forget the smaller and lesser known groups that traditionally miss out on their piece of the pie.

 

    Now let’s get back to the argument that the government could do a better job of providing for charities. When the economy is up the government would be able to help some but not all charitable groups. In leaner times for the government charities would suffer (as well as the poor) because of the lack of funding. In addition charities run the risk of budget cuts if they are not popular or they are not considered politically correct at the time. If a group makes a powerful political enemy (it happens all the time) they could be shut down due to lack of funding. This is yet another example as to why we cannot and should not be dependent upon the government for everything.

 

    Charitable groups serve a useful purpose in that they have the ability to function with minimal government oversight, and often help people become self sufficient. This is not something that the Government is able to do. Without the assistance of affluent donors charities rarely accomplish certain goals in a reasonable time frame. So wouldn’t it make sense to allow for the current tax credits to remain so that private charities can best serve those in need?

 

    By trying to punish wealthier taxpayers Barack Obama is only punishing charities and the poor. He is also undermining the charitable nature of our society by dictating when and to whom we may donate money too. In his effort to bring about change in our society Obama is overlooking those who can benefit from change the most, the poor. Why is it that the government must destroy a system by interfering in the private sector before it realizes that it shouldn’t have interfered in the first place? If Obama really wanted to help the poor he should leave tax credits for charitable contributions alone.

 

Semper Fi

 

Doug Williams

 

Attempting to broaden your mind is no excuse to cut out your PT time. I’m willing to bet you were stuffing food in your pie hole while you were reading this article. Well guess what sweetheart it’s time to pry your wide load out of that computer chair and do some PT. Now drop and give me twenty-five.