Plan for State of the Union address a good idea

An idea thats time has come

To the editor:

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate are embracing the idea of seating lawmakers without regard to party for this month’s State of the Union address, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/state_of…;. 

The idea, proposed by Senator Mark Udall <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/u/mark_udall…; of Colorado, would end more than 200 years of tradition in which lawmakers are almost exclusively seated with members of their own party to listen to the president’s annual address. If implemented, it would end the embarrassment of having one side of the isle stand to applaud almost anything short of having the president of their party blow his nose on the flag while sitting stone faced after a president of the other party makes a suggestion that could well have come out of their own party platform. It might even stop something as oxymoronic as a majority party in Congress holding a vote to repeal a law that is almost identical to one that a leading presidential candidate of that party authored while governor of a state. 

Who knows, it might even lead to replacing the term opposing party with the term other party. As both parties are supposedly working for the American people, it would seem that their could be agreement on most issues. As things now stand agreeing with the other party is political suicide for a Republican politician. The very popular and widely respected Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, lost his party's nomination for senator when he embraced  President Obama. Not wanting to have a similar fate, assuming he runs again, Senator McCain was almost invisible during President Obama's Tucson speech, honoring the victims and heros of the shooting, and reportedly avoided being seen shaking the presidents hand afterward. 

Given the reaction to the president's speech, in which he went out of his way to avoid pointing fingers or being political, and the tragic event, I doubt if there will be more than a temporary lull in the heated political rhetoric that has swept the nation. On his radio show the Tuesday after the shooting, Rush Limbaugh said: 

"What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. He's sitting there in jail. He knows what's going on, he knows that... the Democrat Party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame. He knows if he plays his cards right, he's just a victim." and similar statements have been made from his clones across the country. Locally, Bill Cunningham followed Limbaugh's lead and has been using the tragedy as an excuse to attack liberals and Democrats. Don't know what Eric Deters, another talk show host, has said on air, but in his "Arizona Massacre" article in this paper finds nothing positive to say about the president's speech, which he admits that he has not bothered to read, and goes on the attack against people who suggest that angry right wing rhetoric might incite violence.

Another idea thats time has come would be to require stations broadcasting partisan rhetoric to classify it for what it is, an indirectly paid advertisement for a product or service, and to state before every commercial break that, opinions expressed on this program are those of the on air personalities and the sponsors who see fit to pay for airing them and should not necessarily be be considered based on facts."

Back when, I thought that talk radio shows were forums for open discussion and tried to present opposing views, Time after time screeners cut me off and I wasn't allowed on air. One day, however, after pretending to be drunk and inarticulate, I was allowed on air for a moment. That moment ended however as soon as I dropped the act. After cutting me off, the talk show host asked a question, pretended that I was still on the line, and attributed the lack of response to a liberal hanging up because he wasn't intelligent enough to engage in an open debate. A screener who responded to my asking why I was not being allowed on air prior to cutting me off summed up the situation pretty well by saying " If you want to express your opinion buy your own station."

One final idea thats time has come is to have various talk and news shows rated for accuracy by an independent organization such as fact check.com. If hotels can be rated as one through five stars based on the quality of the services provided, why not programs that the majority of americans get their information from? It would be pretty simple and straight forward. Just classify accuracy of information as 5 star if accurate, and 0 stars if a total lie with increments between for misleading, cherry picked and biased spin, and calculate the average, It would be interesting to see how many stars Limbaugh's show or that of populist Ed Schultz would get. Never heard of Ed Schultz? That's because people in our area, and in most other areas across the country, have to go online to hear his populist message while it is almost impossible to find a place where Rush Limbaugh, can't be heard. Back when I traveled the country for a living, I actually tried to find places where Rush's voice could not be heard and found only a couple, while once in Illinois I picked him up on 7 stations and his clones on three more. 

I'll close with complimenting The Highland County press. Although openly conservative, Rory Ryan, doesn't bar opposing views.

Sincerely,

Charles Leach

Lynchburg

To the editor:

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate are embracing the idea of seating lawmakers without regard to party for this month’s State of the Union address, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/state_of…;. 

The idea, proposed by Senator Mark Udall <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/u/mark_udall…; of Colorado, would end more than 200 years of tradition in which lawmakers are almost exclusively seated with members of their own party to listen to the president’s annual address. If implemented, it would end the embarrassment of having one side of the isle stand to applaud almost anything short of having the president of their party blow his nose on the flag while sitting stone faced after a president of the other party makes a suggestion that could well have come out of their own party platform. It might even stop something as oxymoronic as a majority party in Congress holding a vote to repeal a law that is almost identical to one that a leading presidential candidate of that party authored while governor of a state. 

Who knows, it might even lead to replacing the term opposing party with the term other party. As both parties are supposedly working for the American people, it would seem that their could be agreement on most issues. As things now stand agreeing with the other party is political suicide for a Republican politician. The very popular and widely respected Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, lost his party's nomination for senator when he embraced  President Obama. Not wanting to have a similar fate, assuming he runs again, Senator McCain was almost invisible during President Obama's Tucson speech, honoring the victims and heros of the shooting, and reportedly avoided being seen shaking the presidents hand afterward. 

Given the reaction to the president's speech, in which he went out of his way to avoid pointing fingers or being political, and the tragic event, I doubt if there will be more than a temporary lull in the heated political rhetoric that has swept the nation. On his radio show the Tuesday after the shooting, Rush Limbaugh said: 

"What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. He's sitting there in jail. He knows what's going on, he knows that... the Democrat Party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame. He knows if he plays his cards right, he's just a victim." and similar statements have been made from his clones across the country. Locally, Bill Cunningham followed Limbaugh's lead and has been using the tragedy as an excuse to attack liberals and Democrats. Don't know what Eric Deters, another talk show host, has said on air, but in his "Arizona Massacre" article in this paper finds nothing positive to say about the president's speech, which he admits that he has not bothered to read, and goes on the attack against people who suggest that angry right wing rhetoric might incite violence.

Another idea thats time has come would be to require stations broadcasting partisan rhetoric to classify it for what it is, an indirectly paid advertisement for a product or service, and to state before every commercial break that, opinions expressed on this program are those of the on air personalities and the sponsors who see fit to pay for airing them and should not necessarily be be considered based on facts."

Back when, I thought that talk radio shows were forums for open discussion and tried to present opposing views, Time after time screeners cut me off and I wasn't allowed on air. One day, however, after pretending to be drunk and inarticulate, I was allowed on air for a moment. That moment ended however as soon as I dropped the act. After cutting me off, the talk show host asked a question, pretended that I was still on the line, and attributed the lack of response to a liberal hanging up because he wasn't intelligent enough to engage in an open debate. A screener who responded to my asking why I was not being allowed on air prior to cutting me off summed up the situation pretty well by saying " If you want to express your opinion buy your own station."

One final idea thats time has come is to have various talk and news shows rated for accuracy by an independent organization such as fact check.com. If hotels can be rated as one through five stars based on the quality of the services provided, why not programs that the majority of americans get their information from? It would be pretty simple and straight forward. Just classify accuracy of information as 5 star if accurate, and 0 stars if a total lie with increments between for misleading, cherry picked and biased spin, and calculate the average, It would be interesting to see how many stars Limbaugh's show or that of populist Ed Schultz would get. Never heard of Ed Schultz? That's because people in our area, and in most other areas across the country, have to go online to hear his populist message while it is almost impossible to find a place where Rush Limbaugh, can't be heard. Back when I traveled the country for a living, I actually tried to find places where Rush's voice could not be heard and found only a couple, while once in Illinois I picked him up on 7 stations and his clones on three more. 

I'll close with complimenting The Highland County press. Although openly conservative, Rory Ryan, doesn't bar opposing views.

Sincerely,

Charles Leach

Lynchburg