Propaganda

  My Saturday morning started just like any other. I woke up, ate, and prepared for the day. However, when I checked my news feed on Facebook, I saw a curious video that one of my friends posted. The video in question was on the topic of Israel's foreign policy towards Iran. The video painted Israel as a war mongering nation that was trying to provoke Iran. The video was an interesting watch, until about five minutes of research debunked most of the claims in said video.
    The speaker in the video was the notorious former Louisiana representative, David Duke. Duke's career can be summarized by most as nothing but racism (He supports voluntary segregation and is an ex KKK member) and anti-semitism. Duke is an individual who has continuously painted Jews as the main crux of all of society's problems, a philosophy that got him in arrested in the Czech Republic on charges of being a nazi apologist. It is difficult when watching the video "Israel is a Threat to America" if Duke is merely an ignorant old man or an absolute genius in the art of propaganda. In the video, Duke stated that Iran has never once launched a terrorist attack on Israel or America, conveniently forgetting key events such as the Seven days War and the Iranian hostage crisis. While I do not enjoy taking sides, I merely have to reiterate that Iran, like many nations, despises the United States, and one can easily find footage of Iranian civilians holding up banners that read, "Death to the US".
    I am not an ardent supporter of the Israel or Palestine. I find that both sides have committed far too many atrocities towards one another for a side to be taken. However, I find it silly that Mr. Duke loves to act like such atrocities were not provoked on both ends. The true purpose of Duke's agenda can be best understood when he not only implies that he is a 9/11 "truther", that Israel indirectly had a hand in the tragedy, but that Sadam Hussein was framed as "The next Hitler" merely for his support of Palestine, which was not the case in the slightest. As stated, this video is either embarrassing ignorance, or brilliant hate propaganda. Take your pick.

Is humanity inherently evil?

    Thomas Hobbes had a philosophy that man was inherently evil and governments existed to protect man from itself. The existence of movies, such as "The Purge", in recent years shows that this idea is far from dead. This belief is easy to maintain when one reads the news and finds articles detailing the absolute worst that mankind has to offer. Admittedly, I have sometimes wondered what the true ratio of decent human beings to murderers actually is. As a small child, my mother would always assure me that the ratio was tipped more in the favor of those that were good. However, in my early teenage years, I started to have my doubts. When I would read about the atrocities committed in the Middle East by both extremists and the occasional traumatized soldier, I lost hope in my mother's words.
     Of course, I do not deny the good of man as a whole. I believe that absolutist terms are childish. After all, if man was inherently evil, as Hobbes believed, I do not believe that an institution such as the government would be able to stop mankind from destroying itself. After all, what is it that separates members of a government from civilians? If man is inherently evil, should it not be the case that governments, which are run by humans, are inherently evil as well?
    It is important to not let the media distort the image of humanity. As humans, we are simply attracted to more negative news stories. This can be attributed to the average individual having to life in a constant rut, looking for any form of change, with negative change garnering more of an emotional response.This is why the media profits off of stories involving murder, assault, and/or theft. Of course, we cannot change human nature.

The sensitivity of society

     In modern society, there is an ever present question: Have we become too sensitive? Today, we had a discussion in Government class that posed this question. Several different examples were used in the context of making jokes in poor taste, such as 9/11, the holocaust, and even the Trail of Tears. My answer in regards to the question of when such jokes are acceptable was a simple: "If nobody is left alive to be offended, why should it matter?" If only our society was that simple.
     I have noticed a recurring trend with humans in general. The ones who are offended the most by a joke are ironically the ones that are not the target of said joke. The sign fiasco at MacAdory is a prime example. The sign should have only been offensive to those of Native American ancestry, yet the Native American community had the most mellow reaction to the sign itself. Another case similar in terms of response would be the release of the video game, Resident Evil 5, in 2009, which, before its release, was accused of being racist, primarily by caucasians, just because it was a zombie game that took place in Africa. This accusation became even sillier when the game was released, as protestors would soon be reminded that not all citizens of Africa are black.
    Why is this an issue? My theory is that humans love to jump at any chance to involve themselves in anything where they can voice their thoughts, even if their thoughts are not required. I would compare this to numerous high school accounts I have witnessed where individuals have come to another's defense when they are needed the least. Sensitivity in itself, is appropriate, but when it breeds rigidity, that is where a line has to be drawn.

The question of Pope Francias

     Prior to attending Hoover High School, I was enrolled in the Catholic school system from 2006 to 2013. My time in private schools leads to many elaborate stories, most of which are irrelevant to this blog. However, the one story that does tie in to this blog would be my experience with the "tolerance" of my theology teachers. Hellfire and damnation were constantly preached concerning the subject of homosexuals and atheists, despite one of the tenants of Christianity being, "Judge not, lest thee be judged." I do not hold ill will towards the Catholic Church itself for this hypocrisy, but rather the minds of the teachers. However, perhaps the minds of my former teachers will eventually be opened by the eccentric views of Pope Francis.
      Pope Francis is certainly an eccentric figure, in the sense that he seems to focus more on the judge not factor of Christianity than previous popes. Perhaps the best manner of describing his views of atheists and homosexuals would be "aloof". Throughout my six and a half years in private school, even when my faith was actually strong, I longed for my teachers to actually admit that it is not their place to judge what someone else's place will be. After all, we are all merely humans, not divine beings.
     Of course, this is controversial in the ranks of the church. I do not expect change to come quickly, but hopefully, in my lifetime, the eyes of many will be opened. I suppose I can only hope.

The death of Nelson Mandela

     Today, we have lost an important figure in South African history. Nelson Mandela, the first black South African president whose term lasted from 1994 to 1999, died today at the age of 95. It was through him that apartheid, poverty, and inequality in South Africa were challenged. His 27 years of imprisonment before eventually overcoming said adversity and bringing about change in South Africa I find to be extremely inspirational as exemplified by one of his many incredible quotes: "Do not judge me by my successes, judge me by how many times I fell down and got back up again." This quote can be applied to each and every one of us. In our lives, we all experience failure. However, we experience failure for one crucial reason: So we how to achieve actual success.This was a man who had every reason to become a bitter shell in the face of such hopelessness that only the harsh realities of challenging an oppressive system can bring about. However, he refused to gaze into the abyss, and helped bring about change in South Africa. One can only hope that the world can find some way to fill the void this man left behind.

The question of McAdory

Admittedly, I am late in discussing this story but I still feel the need to comment on it. I will first explain what actually happened to those of my readers that have not checked the national news. Last Friday, McAdory High School's football team played against Pinson Valley High School, a team that has a Native American as its mascot. Before the game, McAdory's students held up an offensive sign that said, "Hey Indians, get ready to leave in a Trail of Tears Round 2." The cheerleading coach, who normally monitors these signs, was on maternity leave at the time of this disaster. Obviously, this shows a lack of class on the part of the cheerleaders who made this insensitive sign, but what has followed this incident might be blowing things out of proportion. I agree that complaints needed to be brought forth, especially by those in the Native American community. However, McAdory has actually received threats for this one banner. My best friend, who goes to McAdory, informed me of an online statement that, paraphrased, stated: "It would certainly be nice if somebody shot up that school."

I will not deny that this sign has racist connotations. However, how are we to move forward as a society if our immediate response to racism is always to issue death threats? I remember, two years ago, there were these two girls on Youtube that were kicked out of school for uploading a video that repeatedly insulted the black community. Afterwards, the families of these two girls kept receiving anonymous death threats for their daughters' actions. In my opinion, responses like these make it hard to sympathize for those that are offended.

"Obama announces change to address health insurance cancellations"

   President Barack recently had to make adjustments for his health care law. Whilst giving a speech, Obama exposed the flaws with his previous health care law as well as his involvement with said flaws. Obama also recently contradicted his promise that people could keep their insurance plans. Afterwards, Polls were taken and they showed that disapproval for the Affordable Care Act has risen from 47 to 55 percent. The polls also displayed that Obama's approval rating has dropped into the high 30s and low 40s.
   It is times like these where one begins to wonder if the President is just an incompetent figurehead or an incredible liar. Obama's history of not keeping his promises has repeatedly called his own loyalties into question. Does Obama truly have the best interest of the American in mind, or is he just telling the Democratic voters what they want to hear? Only time will reveal the true answer to this question.

"Techies concerned over NSA surveillance will march in D.C., proclaiming ‘Stop Watching Us’"

The NSA controversy has become the defining issue among those that are technologically savvy. A protest against the NSA's spy programs is scheduled for Saturday near the Capitol and is expected to gather thousands of followers. The group in charge of the protest, Stop Watching Us, has stated that their protest welcomes any supporters. Stop Watching Us's motivation for protesting lies in the fact that the government simply has too much information at its disposal. One protestor even stated: “Twenty years ago, if they collected this information, they couldn’t do much with it.”

I personally believe that any protest against the NSA is completely justified at this point. The fact that such spy programs existed in the first place already trampled the Constitution, but at least the government was honest about such privacy invasions during the Bush administration. However, President Obama not only went against his campaign promise of ending such programs, he expanded them, which is a horrible crime towards the American people. The term fascism is thrown around frequently with issues such as this but I am going to take a stance at middle ground. I am not one of those people that insists that the United States is already a fascist country, because we have not gone as far as to execute citizens for dissent. However, the direction the United States is heading towards, whatever it may be, cannot be one that is desirable when every citizen is watched constantly as if they are all criminals.

"Obama, Republicans in debt talks on two fronts"

After trying to negotiate with House Republicans about how to end the government shutdown yesterday, the Obama administration has still not made any progress. The Senate suggested reopening the government and raising the federal debt limit for three months, which were closer to Obama's terms. The White House has said that there is the potential for progress to be made in negotiations which would allow Obama to reopen the federal government and resume fixing the economy. However, this statement has not received much clarification as the House Speaker, John A. Boehner, left the Capitol without speaking to reporters.

Both sides have a different view of the meeting. The Republicans see it as a negotiations. However, Obama has publicly and privately stated that he would not negotiate over the federal debt. Today, Obama is expected to host a meeting with the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell. The House has stated that it would negotiate on November 22 but would not agree to end the shutdown.

It is a wonder how the government has come to this point. One wonders if, at this rate, the government will even reopen in the year of 2013. Our current politicians need to understand that this shutdown has the potential to cripple America's economy. However, they are too involved in disagreement and will not budge. I once saw an internet movie critic named Doug Walker that delivered this statement when reviewing a movie: "I've just realized the problem with this movie. There's no story. It's just explaining... it's just explaining and fighting, and I get enough of that from my own government!" This statement definitely holds true to this situation. At the very least, we all can at least tell our children that we lived through this event in American history and just laughed at the incompetence of our politicians.

"Obama cancels the rest of Asia trip, citing difficulties of travel during shutdown"

Last Thursday, President Obama had to recuse himself from two regional summits to handle the quarrel of the budget in Congress that shut down the federal government. Obama made this decision because the shutdown, which was completely avoidable in his eyes, is setting back the government's ability to create jobs, which would be done advocating American advancement and exporting in Asia. Obama was originally scheduled to visit the Southeast Asian countries of Indonesia, Burma, Malaysia, and the Philippines. At the regional summit, Obama was hoping to negotiate with the Russian president over the crisis in Syria and the fate of Edward Snowden, the one who leaked crucial documents about the American government's extensive wiretappings. Experts have said that Obama's inability to make it to the summit will deal a crucial blow to the Obama Administration, as the Chines will probably be able to slowly break off relations with the United States.

I believe that the effects of the government shutdown are a fascinating display of what happens when there is a lack of cooperation amongst politicians. The shutdown has also cost us the opportunity to negotiate for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade agreement that would include over twelve nations. If America is to truly progress as a country, our politicians must learn the meaning of the word "compromise". If our politicians do not learn to compromise in the future, then all of us will suffer. I personally predict that, given the quarrelsome state of our government, another shut down in the future is incredibly probable.

"Iran leader open to meeting Obama at a later date"

The Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, and Barack Obama had to reschedule a meeting last Wednesday due to the Obama administration lacking a clear strategy for negotiations. Rouhani himself has stated that Iran itself actually is open to discussion of peace after 30 years of estrangement but certain conditions need to be set. Rouhani brought up the holocaust as an example, stating that while the event was horrific, it did not justify the displacement of Palestinians in Israel as a result of the Balfour Declaration.

 It has become clear at this point that there will never even be a chance at peace between America and many Middle Eastern countries until the conflict between Israel and Palestine is resolved. However, the question of how and if the conflict will be resolved is pertinent. The Israeli army's response towards terrorist attacks has always been a typical eye for an eye scenario. However, one could argue that the Palestinians are also difficult to sympathize with due to the nature of their terrorist attacks and the fact that the perpetrators of said attacks practically hide behind civilians in an effort to paint the Israeli military as one that deliberately targets civilians in their attacks. This places Iran and the United States in an awkward position when negotiating, as they both support the opposite side.

However, there is still hope for negotiations involving nuclear power, as President Rouhani has the support of Iran's supreme leader in declaring the possibility of scheduling such negotiations at the United Nations.

9/11

September 11, 2001 is a date that will forever invoke fear into the hearts of the American people. On this day, thousands of people died from four suicide bombings. However, more was lost to us after that date than those innocent people. After 9/11, America proceeded to pass the Patriot Act, which tramples on the Constitution. After this date, America would forever live in fear of another terrorist attack and this would allow the government to coerce the people into choosing security over liberty.

It is important to note that while 9/11 should not be taken lightly, American citizens should still not allow themselves to be fooled into giving up what was fought for in the American Revolution. Benjamin Franklin's famous quote is as follows, "Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Franklin knew that there will always become a certain point where after fear has escalated enough, a society will gladly give up all of its freedom. The government should not use the deaths of thousands as an excuse to treat every citizen like they are already criminals. It is both insulting to the victims of the families. However, as the years pass, 9/11 has also become something more akin to a media event, as opposed to a recollection of all of those who have died.

Every year, the footage of the World Trade Center falling has been broadcast over the news. One could argue that this footage is used to remind the American people why we are still at war with the Middle East. However, every year this footage invokes more fear than mourning. I believe society prefers to live in fear of a terrorist attack more than we prefer to pay our respects to our dead. I believe the media could take the recollection of 9/11 in a slightly different route considering the one who orchestrated the attacks has been dead for almost three years. However, one could also argue that that is the nature of society. Fear is a more powerful emotion than sadness and the media uses this to their advantage.

Review of "The Fifteen Biggest Lies in Politics"

"The Fifteen Biggest Lies in Politics" was written by Major Garrett, a reporter, and Timothy Penny, a former Conservative Democrat. The book claims to be a self defense manual for voters by allowing them to see past fifteen dangerous lies used by politicians to sway said voters. The book follows a style of generally presenting a political myth/debate and deconstructing both sides of said issue. "The Fifteen Biggest Lies in Politics" is certainly a well researched book as one can ascertain by the evidence that Garrett and Penny present when debunking an argument. The book has both issues and strengths in its presentation, some of its research and its consistency.

"The Fifteen Biggest Lies in Politics", as stated, is certainly well researched but the manner in which it is presented can be hard to follow for readers who have not yet taken an economics class. The book also has moments in the second third where the writers seemed to have focused more or so on providing information in a flat manner rather than a manner that is interesting to read, such as the case with the weakest chapter, "The Budget Will Be Balanced by the Year 2002". That is not to say, that the information will not be enlightening to some, but it is to say, that it will be difficult for most to swallow at times. I personally found the first third of the book to be the strongest, as it was able to keep my interest the entire read, while the second third dragged, and the third was an inconsistent blend of the first two third's positive and negative qualities.

The book, while generally well-researched, has obvious moments, even in the exceptional first third, of political bias, in the chapter revolving around religion and politics. As I stated in my second blog, both authors seem to let their own faith cloud their judgement as to the fact that while religion has certainly aided certain political morality in cases such as abolition, civil rights, and feminism, it was also used as justification to keep these movements in check by radicals. However, the most impressive research in "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics" was in the abortion and gun control chapters. In the abortion chapter, statistics were shown that implicated both the pro-choice movement (partial birth abortions increasing over time) and the pro-life movement (thousands of violent cases against abortion clinic doctors). Overall, the research of the book, with the exception of the chapter about religion and politics, was well rounded.

As I stated in the second paragraph, the book lacks consistency. After the first third of the book, I was disappointed tremendously with the second third as the book went from a well researched, critique of both sides of an issue to a well researched critique of one side of an issue. The final third held my interest in certain parts but by the end, I was just wishing the style had become less ham fisted and more nonpartisan that the first, second and fourth chapters handled so well. If the book had been consistent, it would have been a superior political book but as it stands, it is average at worst.

Would I recommend this book? No. The second third of "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics" simply drags the book down due to horrible pacing. That is my review of "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics".

Reflecting on the last half of "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics"

The last half of "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics" covered the misconceptions surrounding voting donations, a balance budget, social security, medicare, tax cuts, education, the environment, Republicans' governmental beliefs and Democrats' compassion. The authors of "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics" covered these issues primarily in a more critical light than previous chapters, as opposed to listing the pros and cons to the opposing side, such as the first third of the book regarding cases such as abortion and gun control. However, I am not as inclined to make as many judgements about certain issues described in this half of the book due to my limited knowledge on more than half of said topics. Instead I shall issue a summary of the topics covered in the chapters which I have more of a basic understanding of. The chapters I shall summarize are the ones that discuss education, the environment, and the Democrat's compassion.

The issue of education in America is covered with incredible criticism. The authors describe the American educational system as one of extreme inferiority to the one that was present thirty years before publication. The authors describe this generation as individuals who come out of high school barely knowing much about the American Revolution, how a bill becomes a law in Washington D.C., or how to identify their own state's politicians. The public school is also described as in general, an atmosphere of fear, with students and children fearing hostility from other more violent students. Major Garrett and Timothy Penny outline this by displaying statistics of an increasing number of parents seeking alternatives to public education such as private schools and/or home schooling due to the poor education and the lack of safety in public schools. Both authors point out the pointless nature of having to pay taxes for public schools due to the increasing number of students seeking alternate schools.

The issue of the environment is covered in a rather gray fashion. On the one hand, the authors outline circumstances where larger industry has been hazardous to the lives of citizens, such as the case in Niagara Falls, New York in 1977 when leaked chemicals poisoned residents and in Elizabeth, New Jersey also in 1977 when forty thousand drums of dangerous chemicals exploded and caught fire. However, it is also stressed the amount of environmental paranoia the EPA can stir up, such as seizing land from farmers and ranchers under the Endangered Species Act. Both authors encourage the reader to care for the environment but to also hold the Environmental Protection Agency to a higher standard than they currently are.

The myth of the compassion of Democrats is deconstructed in the final chapter of the book. The stereotype is deconstructed as one fueled by pure nostalgia. The authors deconstruct said stereotype by pointing out that while Democrats have started programs in favor of supporting the weak, they have also over the course of time abandoned sustaining such programs in favor of increasing government size and factoring in too many citizens into their programs to properly run said programs.  The authors point out that this is not compassion, it is merely cowardice.

My prediction about the book was proven right for the most part. I did observe a more critical view of both sides of an argument, such as in the case of the chapter discussing the Environmental Protection Agency. I cannot make a judgement on bias in most of the other chapters due to my lack of knowledge involving issues such as the economy.

Reflection on the first third of "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics"

The first four chapters of "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics" covered the debates over abortion, gun control, religion's role in politics, and immigration. The authors of "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics" discussed both sides of these debates and presented both sides in both a positive and negative light. However, I do feel that the unbiased examination was more present in the first two chapters as opposed to the third and fourth chapters. In Chapters three and four, one can reasonably ascertain that the authors are presenting their view on said debates in a more positive light than the opposing view. This blog post shall summarize the first four chapters of "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics".

The first chapter of "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics"covers the debate of abortion and offers evidence proving why the debate between those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice is fruitless in politics. The chapter describes those who are pro-life as individuals who are primarily governed by religious principles and those who are pro-choice as those who are more concerned with a women's right to her body. Major Garrett and Timothy J. Penney describe the debate as fruitless for two main reasons: Both sides refuse to acknowledge their radicals and how similar both their goals ultimately are. The pro-life movement refuses to take responsibility for members that partake in violent acts against abortion clinic employees such as bombings, death threats, kidnappings, and assaults which, at the time of the book's publish date, had been recorded as over nineteen-hundred since the year 1977. However those who are pro-choice refuse to acknowledge those who murder their babies as soon as they surface from the womb. The second reason the debate over abortion will always yield fruitless is that neither side will acknowledge that their goals are ultimately, similar. Contrary to the implied nature of the pro-choice movement, the head of the pro-choice movement actually is dissatisfied with the increased number of abortions in America and sees the increased loss of life as tragic but still values a woman's right to choose for herself. Those who are pro-life also hope that the number of abortions decreases but also altogether ceases. The authors explain that if both sides reached a compromise, acknowledging how their goals were similar instead of how they were different, then the abortion debate might actually yield noteworthy results.

The second chapter of "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics" covers the issue of gun control. The authors make a point of addressing popular stereotypes as false, such as more available guns increasing crime rates. The authors used statistics that displayed that most criminals came across guns through illegal means, proving that gun control would only serve to limit the populace's ability to defend themselves from criminals. A statistic that further exemplified this displayed that most citizens that survived attacks from assailants only did so through means of their access to firearms. Major Garrett and Timothy J. Penny end the chapter by explaining the very nature of gun control laws is to grant the populace a false sense of security rather than actual enforcement due to the black market already existing for guns.

The third chapter of "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics" covers religion's role in politics. The authors obviously skew statistics in their favor by citing the role that the religious played in ending slavery, sexism in society, and segregation. However neither author cites the fact that those enacting said discriminatory movements used biblical justification to defend slavery and sexism. Slavery was never openly frowned upon in the bible, at most there were passages discussing treatment of one's own slave. In the case of sexism, women themselves were seen as more of support worthy rather than equals due to the tenants of church doctrine placing more authority in the hands of the male gender. Instead of shedding light on how religion was used to justify said discrimination, the authors instead bring up the French "Reign of Terror" as an example of why an atheist community is always an abomination of a society, when the horror of the "Reign of Terror" was more or less a product of less advanced people whom had had strong resentment of the monarchy that farther reaches than that of America's history with the British monarchy. Both authors are obviously Christian, as they mostly point out the morality of the Church being present in politics rather than stressing how the Church being present in politics has also had more negative roles in society rather than just holding back science and pro-choice advocates such as the Crusades and Salem Witch Trials.

The fourth chapter of "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics" covers the issue of immigration. Major Garrett and Timothy J. Penny express the opinion that is intertwined with those who are pro-immigration and anti-immigration. Both authors support immigration as a valuable to American society so long as the immigrant is useful to the work force. However, both authors are vehemently against those who are unskilled and poorly educated entering America, as they cite statistics that show that twenty percent of immigrants are high school dropouts that, in their opinion, hurt the American work force overall. Their position, while arguably callous, at least uses statistics to prevent them from falling into the stereotype of simple xenophobia.

After reading a third of "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics", I have a prediction about the rest of the book. The first third of the book has had me acquainted with the style of the authors, whom generally, present both sides of an issue as both wrong or right, unless they themselves have a strong view favoring a certain side of said debate. I predict that the next few topics covered will be covered in a similar fashion to chapter one, two and four. However I am also predicting that the partial bias of chapter three will surface in later chapters as well. That is my reflection on the first third of "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics".

Choosing a book

The process of choosing the book titled, "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics" was a rather short one. I started by scrolling down the recommended books section of the assignment information multiple times until I found a title that the most interesting title. The title of the book I chose, "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics", caught my eye due to the fact that I am nearing the age where I am eligible to vote and I require more perspective on voting. I expect to learn how to see through the lies that directly influence my voting decision and learn how to make informed judgements on politicians from the book. The background of the authors is also noteworthy.

The authors of "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics" are Major Garrett and Timothy J. Penny. Major Garett was born August 24,1962 in San Diego, California. He graduated from University of Missouri with a Bachelor of Science degree and a Bachelor of Journalism degree and has been a white house correspondent for news stations such as Fox News, CNN and CBS News. Given the news stations past history of accused political bias for the left (CNN and CBS) and the right (Fox), I would be more concerned of political bias if Garrett only worked with said stations if he did not also have a history of writing for the Houston Post, Las Vegas: Review Journal, and Amarillo Globe-News, thus granting him a wide range of political perspective. Timothy Joe Penny was born November 19,1951 in Albert Lea Minnesota. Penny graduated with a bachelor's degree in political science from Winona State University and served as a Democratic Farmer-Labor member in the House of Representatives. I am expecting a more broad view of political issues due to his twelve years in office as a more conservative democrat. In my view, both authors have enough experience with politics and research to at least write a book that grants a view of multiple sides of political lies.