- The training exercise that cost the lives of three American astronauts in 1967, the death of Victor Komaruv the same year. In 1971 three cosmonauts died during re-entry. The Challenger tragedy during which I cried with my kindergarten class and teacher - 7 astronauts. Space Shuttle Columbia...
The Apollo 13 mission that almost cost the lives of 3 astronauts, the Mir collision in 1997.
All of these things effect me still, someone who wasn't related to or even knew someone involved in those accidents and disasters. These have become a part of my blood and my memory. They will adhere to my thoughts and dreams of space as much as Mars looms past the beacon of the moon.
So here we are being privy to the most spectacular alignment we have ever seen as a species and never before in such a pivotal time. Our destiny is being revealed once again to us - but who among us is paying attention?
It is a time of convincing. If a full moon in August, the month of my birth, and a new century isn't well enough for your divining eyes, nor if Mars is dancing closer than ever before, meteors will dash your vision and beguile you. The heavens will change your soul for their employment even if it is only in some small way.
I wish hope were made of gravity and promises were made of light. People would be staring now at a focus of peace and prosperity, destiny amongst nations seeded thoroughly in a medium of orange-red dust and the compliment metallic nutrient - a new blood capable of respirating a Martian soul. Growing to love one another and the strive for something better and something otherworldly. Being able to stare down the pasts of history in a telescope...from...Mars or the Moon at the water Planet growing old and wise and new.
It only takes a moment at the window to realize this is something that everyone should know. So I write this passage as my country, one of the leaders of this world, loses its vision. The visitors of another planet have turned their backs on the stars staring at them so intensely now in concert. They have insulted their dear friends (allies) while venting their anger at some distant tyrant land. Showering missiles like meteors and preparing for war by scrutinizing too closely the earth. And where it would take two eyes to track a planet, it only takes two hands to shut the blinds.
Mine are being held open this night - for I am catching up with old aquaintences and reaching for their forgiveness.
- Following the verdict, German government officials praised the court's decision and said that despite concerns about security and sensitive intelligence information, the trial showed that terrorists could be tried as criminals in a public court.
What is tragic in this situation is how rediculous that statement is after the fact. First off, criminals are tried in public courts, thats obvious. Public courts are for public cases. This was different. This guy is a war criminal. He was involved in an act of war. He was an international suspect involved in an act of terrorism and has been proven so in a court of law. Why not try him in a military tribunal, what happened in this case that proved it otherwise? Why is this so surprising?
France and Germany have large populations of Islamic Fundamentalists and it is not a surprise to find that they don't have strict laws against this type of international problem. Their leniency towards a global infection that has already proven itself as being production line for international unrest and global mistrust, turmoil. Their history has proven it, and our reaction has continuously absolved them. 15 years is nothing compared to 3000 murders.
Liberal Radio Required?
I just couldn't understand the need for this type of outlet because first I think politics are prevalent enough throughout the media and second I think as well that liberal points of view are already represented fairly. My observation is that maybe the Conservative media seems concentrated because it is isolated and non-mainstreamed. The problem I had with the article is this, that the Liberals, as they call themselves, would consider the need for a venue to portray their opinions and beliefs as a response to what is currently going on in the Conservative arena.
Well the question they didn't answer in the article is "What is going on?" and the fact alone that they didn't address that question is evidence of poor objectivity in todays politically ingratiated media market.
I see very little going on at present within the Conservative outposts of the media. Granted I know of a few so called conservative related political shows, but overall I don't think it would be fair to say that the entire media or a major portion of it could be construed or described as (politically) conservatively oriented. Which is why I disagree with the statements made in the article. I don't observe political shows, I observe entertaining shows.
In response to this statement:
- "There are so many right-wing talk shows, we think it's created a hole in the market you could drive a truck through."
There are shows that are right-wing and conservative, but they are not so numerous as to skew the broadcasts of the entire nation. And their popularity has been attributed only to their entertainment value. The fact that people observe these shows is evidence enough that when it comes down to it - whether you are conservative or liberal - it is all just entertainment. And this is a characteristic of our broadcast media at its fundamental root, that it is a business and it is about money.
In response to the statement:
- "Part of the impetus for this angry conservative bent of talk radio is the notion that the press is unfair, that it's part of a liberal establishment conspiracy," said Tom Rosenstiel, director for the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
I would argue the point that media - which has been heavily referenced as being a liberal market - really isn't as political as the article would have me believe. Be it most of todays stars and iconic figures surrounding the world of media are from point of perspectives liberal and democratic - which has been proven during various political campaigns. But the bottom line is money. Business. Media stars are wealthy, they contribute money to powerful political figures whom are of alike conformity and opinion (most of the time) to themselves, empowering them with the ability to campaign. And in that vein, being directly connected to the media orientation, their priorities are passed further along than say, maybe a single vote. But where is the connection? Where the money is.
In my opinion, I think people only watch what they want to watch and they watch certain conservative shows because they are entertaining - which doesn't necessarily imply their politcal views. That this response to a quadrant of the media is a complete overreaction and the so called "need" for a left winged oriented network is only a "want" based on business or monetary success, and it shouldn't be sold in any other way.
The reason I so disagree with this article is that it presupposes that the media is a liberal market, and that this new injunction of a network will somehow even out the scales of the media message that has been skewed by popular conservative networks/programs. Well if that is true, and basically I don't believe it is, why does Jon Sinton have any issues or concerns at all? The "balance" is equivocated in the article by means of ignoring any sort of objectivity whatsoever on the part of the reasons for this network. If the so called "liberal" media wants to make it fair, why react so intensely to something that isn't unfair?
Because of money (greed).