MSNBC vs. FOX News

As a follow up to my last post, a relevant article in the New York Times discusses the two networks. Essentially, FOX News was formed 12 years ago for "nonliberals" starved for a non-biased show during the day and an openly conservative-leaning opinion at night. It wasn't until recently that MSNBC established itself as a liberal alternative to FOX News during primetime after struggling for an identity and probably lagging in ratings.

Moving to Canada?

That's what people were talking about back when Bush was elected. And I hear it now, on the chance that McCain gets elected (okay, so it's not likely based on all the polls). I don't hang around and talk with McCain supporters, so who knows if they're saying the same thing if Obama gets elected? People just need to calm down. It's not like we're changing to a dictatorship with Saddam Hussein back from the dead if Obama gets elected, although people may think that (they do share the same name...) And if McCain gets elected, is it really all that bad? He is a moderate Republican (well, I guess you have to ignore the fact that Palin is his VP).

When it comes to politics, similar to religion, people get all worked up about it, because only their view is right, they can only see their side, and they have such big blinders on. Isn't there a possibility that you could be wrong? That the opposing side may have a valid viewpoint? That's why I don't like to seriously watch MSNBC or FOX News because of their inherent biases. It's fun to watch and see what one channel is talking about that the other channel isn't even discussing, but you can't watch it seriously. It's just so funny to hear pundits talk until they're blue in the face about some point that any sane, reasonable, objective person would think is ridiculous. You hear them going on and on, using the same talking points, defending some ridiculous point. Both sides do it, liberals and conservatives.

People get worked up over politics and elections. I get it. I know sometimes I do when I'm watching the news channels about that day's "breaking news." Maybe to ease up on the blood pressure, we just all need to admit that we could be wrong. Tell yourself, maybe Palin could actually speak in a coherent way, and even if she doesn't, it has no reflection on how she would lead.

It has been nerve racking at times waiting for the elections on Nov. 4th. Maybe the best way to cope is read the Seattle Times guest article that talks about this whole idea that I've been thinking about for awhile: the fact that you could be wrong and it wouldn't be that bad if the other side won. And in the meantime, before you move to Canada, appreciate the fact that you're actually voting between Obama and McCain, and not between Hitler and Saddam Hussein.

I-985 - Vote NO

Seattle Times: No
Post Intelligencer: No

This measure would open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all traffic during specified hours, require traffic light synchronization, increase roadside assistance funding, and dedicate certain taxes, fines, tolls and other revenues to traffic-flow purposes.

It's sponsored by Tim Eyman. Need I say more?

Vote No if you want to reduce traffic congestion, make roads safer, and want the 520 bridge rebuilt before it collapses. Vote Yes if you think Eyman is really cool.

If you're still reading, then read this from the Times:

Members of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, including professionals who worked on many highway projects in Washington, issued a report saying Eyman's proposals would "increase congestion and possibly impact safety."

Anyone who wants to see a new Highway 520 floating bridge should oppose I-985, says King County Executive Ron Sims. The measure would limit the use of toll revenue to the route on which the toll is collected, with any excess going to the traffic-congestion fund.

"If you only limit tolls to 520, you cannot rebuild 520," said Sims, who favors tolling both the 520 and I-90 bridges. Sims predicts no one would buy bonds necessary to build a new 520 bridge if motorists could avoid tolls simply by using I-90, substantially cutting the revenue 520 tolls could generate.

Some additional info on I-985 from the Washington State DOT and the Puget Sound Regional Council. Thanks to Tony Woody, P.E. and Aimee Woody for providing the info on the links above. See Tony’s credentials in the Proposition 1 section below.

A recent Seattle Times article indicated that a letter from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration indicated that I-985 could cost the state millions of dollars in federal funds, stall highway projects, aggravate traffic congestion, increase air pollution and force the closure of some freeway-access ramps.

I-1000 - Vote YES

Seattle Times: Yes
Post Intelligencer: Believes editorials should not take a stance on issues as personal as lethal injections for the terminally ill. That being said, the PI believes that you should not reject this if you feel that the safeguards are inadequate, since the Oregon experience belies that argument. Instead, a rejection or approval should come from your own personal moral beliefs.

This measure would permit terminally ill, competent, adult Washington residents, who are medically predicted to have six months or less to live, to request and self-administer lethal medication prescribed by a physician.

This one is easy to decide, based on your personal beliefs: Vote Yes if you believe in assisted suicide and vote No if you don’t.

This law mirrors the Death with Dignity law in Oregon that has been in place for over 10 years. From the Voter’s Pamphlet:

This choice belongs exclusively to the terminally ill individual. Government, politicians, religious groups and others should not dictate these personal decisions.

From the Seattle Times Editorials:

I-1000 aims to protect the patient by making him or her ask for the lethal dose several times, once with witnesses and in writing. It requires two doctors to certify that the patient has an untreatable disease likely to be fatal within six months.