Random thoughts for the newest post

I figured that since I don't post much anymore, I'd just say what is on my mind in the title, and if it piques your interest, then you'll read, or you'll ignore it.

Either way, it doesn't really matter to me, since it's my blog, and I can make the rules as I see fit!

Something really bothered me this week as I was driving to a work location.

See, I am going to classes three days a week, and the other "free" days I spend doing odd jobs for the income to keep myself afloat. Recently, that job has been as an installer and cleaner for a graphics company. I've been doing audits of banners, signs, window vinyl and various other graphic forms. It's interesting work, and the pay pretty much keeps me where I need to be as a full-time student needing to support himself.

Anyway, I was on my way to a jobsite when I read a billboard and the accusatory statement that was on it. The general gist of the saying was "Iraq, Pakistan and Libya.. What will Obama's next tour of duty look like?"

Honestly, that really rubbed me the wrong way. You see, in my viewpoint there isn't much that the US as a whole gets into that hasn't been festering for quite a while on a global level. You can't lay the entire blame of Iraq on Obama, since George Jr and Sr both had a hand in that conflict, along with Clinton. You can't blame Pakistan on him as well, since there's been unrest in that country since well before Jimmy Carter's time. And Libya? PLEASE. That's like blaming Obama for Vietnam, even though we all know that Kennedy, Johnston and Nixon were the ones manning the helm during that one. However the buildup of that one dates back to Eisenhower, if you get technical with it.

So my point here is that just because the conflict became something that couldn't be ignored does not mean that the person in office at the time is the one fully responsible for the resulting actions. That would mean that whomever is the head of Fannie Mae, or any other institute would be to blame for the failures of their predecessors. It's unreasonable and quite childish.

In my opinion, Obama isn't that bad of a president. True, there are things he's tried to do that I don't agree with, but his intentions seem to be in the right place. However, the worst thing to do is blame him for everything that is wrong, or worse, give him credit for everything that's going right, and then objectify him as either a prodigy or a devil.

I mean, when Obama was up for election, EVERY media outlet was treating him like some kind of national religion.. "You can say something bad about Obama, but then say 50 'Hail Obamas' and do three touchy-feely pieces later". He was hailed as the next Lincoln, Roosevelt and Washington before he ever stepped foot in office, let alone elected!

This is what I have a problem with in the media anymore. I mean, they want a good story, and aren't afraid to totally villify someone if the sales are good enough. They'll print a retraction or apology later (on page 12 as a blurb) and keep sensationalizing stories that really don't need embellishment or anything elaborate.

When did we stop reporting the truth, and start becoming a nation of storytellers?