People are tired of the “Christianity” we peddle. Check that. I am tired of the “Christianity” we peddle.

Jesus Christ is my living Savior and Lord. He is the Eternal Source of my faith and security. In Him alone do I hope. He gives meaning to every aspect and situation of life. He gave the very last ounce of Himself to redeem my utter sinfulness, though He did not stop at dying for me. He went on to rise for me. And for all who will look upon Him and say, “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.” In Him all things hold together and have their subsistence. People can’t help but love that Jesus—the real Jesus. But, we’ve quit introducing him to the world, now haven’t we?

Jesus Christ came that all might be redeemed and made new. Satan is not so powerful that he can ever contaminate something beyond the point where Christ can make it new again. He heals broken relationships—if we give them to Him. He overcomes our inborn sin—if we give it to Him. He overcomes our world—if we give it to Him. He gives us strength to struggle for the right in the midst of voices who call for complacency and inaction—if we give our motives and passion to Him. He sees into our inner being and sets about making us into reflectors of His grace, mercy, and compassion—if we give ourselves to Him. He redeems all that is given to Him. The world both needs and wants that Jesus—the real Jesus.

And so what do we Christians give to the world? Our structures, our formats, our pride, our arrogance, our self-righteousness, our utter contempt for the true Person of Christ. We pore over the Scriptures and do not recognize the authentic Christ—and that God’s Word also serves as a mirror each time we see the legalists, the Pharisees, the hard-hearted religious. That is not the faith my Savior gave His death and life to preserve. That is the religion my Savior defeated.

But we keep resurrecting it and trying to breathe new life into it. I have news, folks, if Jesus killed it, it’s gone—and gone for good. He came that we would have, not death, but life, and life more abundant.

People hate our Jesus because we have made Him into us—our passions, our priorities, our prejudices, our policies, our procedures. If and when we are willing to let Him make us into Him, the world will get a whiff of genuine, sin-killing, life-giving, make-me-a-new-person faith lived out in how we speak, how we respond, how we love, how we worship, and how we live. In short, people will love Jesus when we introduce them to Him by acting like we’ve met Him ourselves. Let’s get to it.

I’m looking for a few folks who are serious about being Christ’s representatives to the world.

I have been at odds with some of my blogger pals because I favored the new area-code overlay for the area currently served by the 918 area code (rather than a split). Most of those who favored the split seemed to be from the Tulsa metro, and I had to assume they thought the metro would keep the 918 while us more rural folks would get the new area code. I favor the overlay because a whole bunch of folks and businesses who have had 918 numbers for years simply shouldn’t arbitrarily have had to switch to new ones and endure the costs associated. More importantly, area codes are becoming more and more meaningless with number portability. You can get a Vonage phone line with virtually (pardon the pun) any area code—even multiple areas codes—in the country and have it ring wherever you happen to put the VOIP device online.

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission voted 2-1 Monday for the overlay rather than the split. Dana Murphy, of whom I am usually very supportive, was the dissenter.

The new area code will be 539 (Charles Hill was right about it starting with 5), and it will apply to new phone numbers within the current 918 area code after April 1, 2011 (if they are out of 918s by then). It will mean 10-digit dialing, even for local calls, which is the only downside I see to the overlay, but I frankly think we’re headed for that anyway. And honestly, we’re also headed to more pre-programmed calls from contact address books, so the extra three digits aren’t that much of a burden.

Glad they ruled the way they did. I’m remembering a Seinfeld episode about the perception of the new (646) versus the old (212) area code.

UPDATE: The Claremore Progress reports that RSU has hired a new full-time therapeutic riding instructor, Elizabeth Capalbo, for the Bit by Bit program. Her credentials, like Ms. England’s, look great. But as I said with the announcement of Ms. England, the hiring of great personnel does nothing to change bad behavior of the past, and if nothing changes in the way Bit by Bit is administered by RSU execs, these great staffers will soon be facing the same frustrations and asking the same questions that led to the recent departures of Milliman, Switala, and Hart. Here’s hoping the someone, somewhere learned something. We continue to share our deep concern about those who have given so much of themselves to make Bit by Bit what is it, only to have their service and dedication discarded so shabbily. (On a side note, and this goes far beyond RSU, I have recently become somewhat concerned at the notion of doing a “nation-wide search” as a means of recruiting talent. Nothing about being from far away gives anyone more or less skill in certain areas. It simply makes them from far away. It’s not wrong to look broadly, but if it is used as a maneuver to neglect and/overlook genuine talent in your own backyard, something’s not right. And let’s not forget that when brother Joe Wiley departed RSU for greener pastures in Tennessee, the transition was too delicate to wait on a nationwide (or, heck, multicounty) search. Dr. Rice was designated very quickly. Just my opinion, which may or may not be worth exactly what you paid for it.)

[Original Post Below]

I have a wicked head cold and work is busier than busy, so I don’t have time to give many details, but I can make a few quick updates.

Megan Hart has also resigned from RSU’s Bit by Bit program. It appears she will be allowed to work out her notice (but seriously, how could she not, there’s no one left). It appears Ms. English will have a very clean slate when she arrives.

There’s been another firing resignation in another department at RSU. I’ll add more as I am able.

You Welchites, don’t forget the Welch Public Schools Enrichment Banquet tonight at 6:30. I’ll be there, head cold and all.

News came yesterday that RSU has hired a new director for the Bit by Bit therapeutic equestrian program. I shared the information via Twitter and Facebook yesterday. You can read RSU’s reeducation document press release here.

First, what do I think of Jennifer England? All I know is what I have read in this press release. It appears she is a well qualified and competent person. Her years of involvement seem to indicate a sense of commitment and caring for persons with needs similar to those who so greatly benefit from Bit by Bit. I can’t argue with that.

That said, when was the last time you ever saw anyone issue a press release that said, “Please note, we have hired a complete loser.” Read me well: I am not saying England is a loser, but I am saying that if RSU, in its haste to install a new Bit by Bit director—maybe to help squelch public backlash over a blatant and idiotic administration blunder—did hire someone less than primo, do you think they’d tell you? RSU’s press release is merely its spin, designed to restore public trust in a program people know has some serious problems.

But let’s assume that Ms. England is absolutley as described, which I am sure she is, and that she is a caring, capable woman who will care deeply about the Bit by Bit program. How does that set her apart from the previous directors, all of whom have been described to me using the same words by volunteers in the program? How does that fix the issues with Bit by Bit, NONE OF WHICH HAVE BEEN IN REGARD THE DIRECTORS OF THE PROGRAM? It doesn’t. Period.

In short, a new Bit by Bit director does nothing to fix the problems in RSU administrative oversight and operation of the program. Further, if she is a smart and savvy professional who truly cares about the program, and nothing changes within the RSU administration, she will get frustrated, ask questions, and—most likely—be terminated like those before. I, for one, want Ms. England’s association with Bit by Bit to be more than a brief interlude before she has to file a wrongful termination lawsuit.  That means reform must occur.

And so I ask, What does reform look like? I’d like the many of you who are visiting this site to weigh in via the comments sections and tell me what you need to see from RSU to convince you to reinvest your time, talent, and treasure in the Bit by Bit program.

And let’s all be clear here. This issue is not dead. There are many volunteers and donors who are still livid over RSU’s (mis)administration of Bit by Bit. And while no one I have communicated with desires to see any Bit by Bit students harmed, they are committed to seeing Bit by Bit fixed—even if that means withdrawing themselves and their resources, including horses, until a real fix is executed. That, in the long term, will ensure that there is a Bit by Bit to serve those with special needs. In short, it’s the most caring and most responsible response. We all know Bit by Bit can exist and operate without being under the RSU umbrella. Is that what it will take? Is RSU willing to fix what is truly broken? Weigh in below.

Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern has created a Proclamation for Morality, asking for signatories, and planning a signing ceremony at noon, Thursday, July 2, 2009, at the Capitol Rotunda. Many are keen to get behind the proclamation, with some viewing its support as indicative of one’s conservatism. Kern has been the center of much controversy in the past, due to her statements about homosexuality. While I agree with much of the sentiment of her proclamation, I cannot sign it. Read the proclamation (take a deep breath, it’s long), then I’ll explain why.

WE THE PEOPLE OF OKLAHOMA, Invoking the guidance of almighty god, in
order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty; to secure
just and rightful Government; to promote our mutual Welfare and
Happiness, do establish this proclamation and call upon the people of
the great State of Oklahoma, and our fellow Patriots in these United
States of America who look to the Lord for guidance, to acknowledge
the need for a national awakening of righteousness in our land.

WHEREAS, “It is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the
Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand” (John Adams); and

WHEREAS, “We have no government armed with power capable of
contending with human passions unbridled by Religion and
Morality” (John Adams); and

WHEREAS, “Our Constitution was made only for a Moral and Religious
people” (John Adams), and

WHEREAS, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization,
not upon the power of government…. But upon the capacity of mankind
for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern
ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the
Ten Commandments of God” (James Madison); and

WHEREAS, “Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a
right that belongs to us by the laws of God” (Benjamin Franklin); and

WHEREAS, “God who gave us life gave us liberty and can the liberties
of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm
basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties
are of the Gift of God” (Thomas Jefferson); and

WHEREAS, “Whether any free government can be permanent, where the
public worship of God, and the support of Religion, constitute no part
of the policy or duty of the state” (Joseph Story); and

WHEREAS, “We hold sacred the rights of conscience, and promise to the
people…. The free and undisturbed exercise of their religion” (Roger
Sherman); and

WHEREAS, “This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by
Christians” (Patrick Henry); and

WHEREAS, “When you…. Exercise the right of voting for public
officers, let it be impressed upon your mind that God commands you to
chose just men who will rule in the fear of God” (Noah Webster); and

WHEREAS, “The principles of genuine Liberty and of wise laws and
administrations are to be drawn from the Bible” (Noah Webster); and

WHEREAS, the people of Oklahoma have a strong tradition of reliance
upon the Creator of the Universe; and

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater
national moral crisis; and

WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion,
pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate
births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and

WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America
is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was
built; and

WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the President of these United
States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past
presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and

WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the President of these
United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and
pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned elected
officials of the people of Oklahoma, religious leaders and citizens of
the State of Oklahoma, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world,
solemnly declare that the HOPE of the great State of Oklahoma and of
these United States, rests upon the Principles of Religion and
Morality as put forth in the HOLY BIBLE; and

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, believers in the One True
God and His only Son, call upon all to join with us in recognizing
that “Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord” and humbly implore
all who love Truth and Virtue to live above reproach in the sight of
God and man with a firm reliance on the leadership and protection of
Almighty God; and

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, humbly call upon Holy God,
our Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer, to have mercy on this nation, to
stay His hand of judgment, and grant a national awakening of
righteousness and Christian renewal as we repent of our great sin.

Signed on the Second Day of July in the Year of our Lord Christ Two
Thousand and Nine.

So there you have it. It’s long, as proclamations tend to be, and it employs many good words—some from our Founders, and most of the sentiments I find biblical and worthy of support. But, there’s one thing in particular that bothers me.

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater
national moral crisis; and

Really? Sorry, but I don’t buy it. What if our current economic woes are due to persons at all levels making bad economic choices  and/or many being the victims of fraud and/or the federal government being altogether too entangled in the affairs of her subjects citizens?

Can and does God bring economic calamity as a punishment for moral lapses. Certainly. Is every economic travail an indication of rampant sinfulness in the lives of those affected. Certainly not! This is some of the wrong-headed thinking about the Gospel that I can’t stomach, and I hate to see that my fellow Baptist Sally Kern has made this leap into what I can only term as error.

Think about Christians down through the ages. We Christians, historically, have certainly not been characterized by wealth. What about those Christians today who suffer both abject poverty and acute persecution? Are they paying economically for their views on abortion, homosexuality, and pornography? I know it’s counter to a whole segment of prosperity preachers of this modern age, but Christ said that foxes had holes and birds had nests but the Son of Man had no place to lay His head. This, from the same Guy who said that a servant is no better than his Master. If we believe Him, and I think it’s a pretty good idea that we do, we understand that there is no guarantee of financial blessing because we claim Him as our Lord.

We have, no doubt, been a supremely blessed people. Being born in this country is a blessing above all blessings. And even in a nation that is currently slouching toward the false promises of socialized this and government-guaranteed that, we are freer, richer, and better off than most people on the planet in any era of history. Why? This thing called Liberty.

The same liberty that allows persons to choose other than Christ allows persons to shift gears mid-stream and embrace the offer of grace. I know it’s a silly notion, but what if abortions plummeted not because they were illegal but because our collective hearts were changed to the point that the physical expression of love occurred between committed, married couples who would welcome a child into the world? What if smut no longer sold because the market dried up due to God’s replacing hearts of stone with hearts of flesh? What if child and elder abuse died because we simply loved life? I know, I know. I am an idealist trapped in a realist’s body. It is right and proper that we have laws against these things on the books, but I long for the day when His government rules and the law of love is perfected. For now, though, dark as the world is, it sure looks white unto a harvest. Does this Proclamation for Morality do anything to bring in the sheaves? I’m unconvinced it does.

And so for now, though I can agree with much in Kern’s proclamation and the sentiment behind it, I cannot endorse it or encourage others to do so. If I need to get behind a proclamation, I’ll continue to support the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am convinced that committed Christ followers elect better representatives, so if we want morality to reign in the halls of government, we best share Christ.

I read that rather than vilifying Senator Specter, I should reflect on why he made the big leap. I have.

Says Specter:

I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

We could have told him that years ago.

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter has ratified his several years’ of behavior and officially become a Democrat. It’s a silly notion, really, because Specter doesn’t fit really well in either party. My problem, though, has been that as a Republican who was out of step with the vast majority of his party on many things related to the judiciary, he has been allowed the very powerful Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. He should have been assigned chairman of a committee related to areas on which he was in agreement with his party overall.

And then there is the silly business about protecting incumbents. Though Specter was an all-around thorn in President Bush’s side, Bush refused to back a truly conservative primary opponent to Specter, so Specter clung to power. And power is what this is all really about.

When someone switches from the majority to the minority (without it shifting the balance of power to once again put the defector in the majority), I’ll be open to claims about their bravery and character. That is not the case here. Specter has admitted this is in a move to keep the power and prestige of his Senate seat:

I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. … And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.

Translation: I want to keep right on being a Senator, and I’ll bribe the people of Pennsylvania with federal money to make it happen.

His move is not surprising. He, like many—maybe most—politicians, has grown addicted to the power it brings. He stayed with the Republicans for the last few years because they were daft enough to allow him what he wanted, especially his chairmanship. He will now hitch his wagon to the Dems as long as they give him the concessions he wants. He’s a political opportunist (probably a redundancy in terms), and he capitalized on his opportunity to survive against a strong conservative opponent in the upcoming primary. No one said he’s not shrewd. It would just be nice to see such dedication to principle rather than survival.

Apparently President Obama has called to welcome Specter to the party. This is probably a blessing for conservatism. If you give President Obama a cloture-voting, 60-seat majority in the Senate (combined with a large majority in the House), their policies will be unstoppable. And nothing converts the citizenry to conservatism like life under a liberal regime.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele actually made an inteligible comment this time:

“Let’s be honest—Senator Specter didn’t leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don’t do it first.”

And so, it is what it is. No huge loss; just a small man serving his personal interests. You know, just another day in Washington, D.C.

Previously in this space, I have shared that I have been in a dialogue with Bailey Dabney, publisher of the Claremore Progress, regarding Claremore’s tea party last week and the Progress‘ coverage of it. What I did not share was that Mr. Dabney was gracious enough to invite me to respond on the pages of his paper as a guest columnist, rather than in a letter to the editor. He certainly did not have to do so. And when he received my column, he didn’t have to print it, but he did. You’ll find it on the Op-Ed page of today’s (April 21, 2009) Progress and also online here.

Since my reports on the Claremore tea party and subsequent responses to the Claremore Progress‘ coverage of it, I have had occasion to be in communication with Bailey Dabney, the still relatively new publisher of the paper. I won’t be sharing many of the details of our dialogue, other than to saw it has been cordial, fair, and friendly. I find him a reasonable man. I am also impressed with his level coverage of what he say when he was in attendance at the Oklahoma City tea party. It’s as if he actually got out of his car and walked among those about which he intended to report.

The Tea Party crowd was friendly and lively, with an interesting array of witty and creative signs expressing dissatisfaction with our current national fiscal policies. As an eyewitness to this sizable gathering, I was surprised the way these groups have been portrayed by national media. There was no anti-government, anti-American, or anti-establishment attitude, as one cable news network described them. Taxpayers did want to be heard regarding their distaste for the current fiscal strategy. The tone was civil and friendly as I walked through snapping pictures with my Blackberry. Watching this group actually made me proud to live in a country where this type of civil communication is allowed. I haven’t seen official estimates, but my unofficial estimate puts 5,000 or more American patriots in attendance as our group walked through. By my estimation, this is an example for other protestors to follow.

That’s strikingly different from the report provided by his underlings in regard to Claremore’s event. It’s nice to see a reasoned head at the helm, and I am hopeful that he continues to improve the paper’s reporting and editorial pieces. His staffers should take a page from his book (or should that be paper?).

This is a good sign. I’ve been critical of the Progress many times, but I have to give credit where credit is due. At this rate, they may get me back as a subscriber.

[UPDATE—April 17, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.]

In response to my (and others’) claims that the Claremore Progress’ audio report posted on their site was inaccurate (see original post below), whoever Twitters for the paper as WillRogersPaper just tweeted this:

Some RC folks upset as being characterized as being “angry” while at TEA Party and not in street. Todays Progress

And as proof that participants were demonstrating in the intersection, they offer a link to this twitpic (click for big):

Let’s do a little analysis, shall we? What you see here are not tea party demonstrators protesting in an intersection, though the Progress intends you to think that. You see one man (”Born Free – Taxed to Death”) standing off the curb, though not being a hindrance to traffic, holding his sign. The rest of the people in this picture, which the Progress obviously intends you to interpret as protesters in an intersection, are actually crossing the street at the designated point (i.e., the crosswalk). You see a couple young men transporting signs (obviously not waving them) crossing from east to west, and another group, appearing to be mostly women, crossing from west to east. Notice they all have a raised foot, caught by the camera in the action of walking across the street, at the legal place to do so (presumably after receiving the illuminated “Walk” indication). The woman in the red hoodie holding up her sign is on the sidewalk (notice her height). All in all, a weak attempt to substantiate a fabrication with a misleading picture. Seems the Progress continues to ratify everything people have been saying.

This goes perfectly to my previous point. One can report what actually happened, or because of bias, agenda, or just sloppy journalism, they can report what they want and offer up a clearly mischaracterized picture  as support.

I reassert my previous points: protesters were not demonstrating in the intersection, the demonstrators were certainly not a disturbance to traffic, they were not angry, raving maniacs. It was an orderly demonstration by patriotic Americans, which–judging by the public response as it happened–has significant support. Guess it’s too much to ask that the Claremore Progress get it right, or at least correct the record when they are shown to be wrong.

Oh, and just one question for Progress reporter Krystal Carman, who received photo credit for previous Progress pictures and presumably this one: “Did you cross the street, and if so, where? If you were photographed doing so, would it be fair to accuse you of practicing the craft of alleged journalism (or photography) in the intersection?” Didn’t think so.

[End of Update]

[Original Post]

I was on the scene at yesterday’s Claremore tea party. Loyal readers will recall I provided audio reports from the scene throughout the morning demonstration. I did this using a nifty little program called AudioBoo. Lo and behold, today I see that the Claremore Progress has updated its report about the tea party by uploading an audio report using AudioBoo. I wonder where they got that idea? I don’t mind being a trendsetter. But, the Progress is missing the point. The beauty of technology is that it allows one (in this case, me) to do reports from the scene of the action as it happens. It’s a waste of the technology to use it as the Progress has.

What did they do? Well, according to the Progress website:

Progress Managing Editor Randy Cowling and Staff Writer Krystal Carman talk about the event.

Click the play button below to listen to their commentary.

What a joke! Were these people even at the same event I was? Aside from seemingly missing the metaphorical meaning of a tea party, they seem to be awfully concerned with the distraction to traffic. I was at the 11 a.m. event the entire time, and I never once saw anyone in any intersection. There were ROCO sheriff’s deputies on scene who I witnessed showing demonstrators where they could and could not stand (from the sidewalk out). If there were ever anyone in an intersection, the deputies would no doubt have dealt with it. Demonstrators were lining the streets at intersections, but that is not being in an intersection, and they were certainly not a distraction to traffic. In fact, if you listen to my reports from the scene, you will hear lots of honks of support from the allegedly distracted passersby.

Further, I spoke with several people there, and no one was emotionally angry. Sure, people are passionate about where they stand. But it was no hateful crowd ranting and raving. It was a very collegial and good-spirited gathering. Again, if these were raving lunatics, you could have heard that in my reports. Judge for yourself. It’s also shocking to hear the surprise in their voices as they share that the public is allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights without a permit. Maybe the Progress should be required to get a permit to exercise theirs.

And finally, I would challenge the numbers quoted. There were far more than 50 at the 11 a.m. event, and if they’re off by that much once, how many other things are being slanted by this rag? I’ve alleged the Progress‘ bias for a long time, and these two hacks have proved my point. For too long, certain papers (which are rapidly dying) have reported the news after the fact and after it has passed through a less-than-objective filter. And in print, they can use certain verbiage that makes them seem fair. Audio is another thing. You can hear the bias in the Progress‘ audio report. Just give a listen and judge for yourself.

Political cycles are cyclical. If one looks to the U.S. presidency, especially in modern times, we see a pendulum swing from left to right and back to left over and over again. Hoover to FDR, then Truman when FDR died, then to Eisenhower, to Kennedy and Johnson, who succeeded upon JFK’s death, to Nixon and Ford, who took over upon Nixon’s resignation, to Carter, to Reagan, then his VP, Bush 41, to Clinton, to Bush 43, and now Obama. It’s almost like a marching cadence (former band members yell with me), “Left, right, left, right!”

And while “change” is everyone’s new favorite word, I don’t see that we’re in for a change to anything new. Largely what I see being offered are repackaged things that didn’t work before, and many of which in fact led us into the morass that was the 1970s. That said, this post is not about politicians’ politics. They make their promises, we hold elections, and someone is ceded power for a time. We’ll see how it works out, though many of us are sure we have a good idea where it’s headed.

No, the change I crave, and the change that will save our civilization is a fundamental change in the news media. It was long understood that an objective and free press was essential to the success of our Republic. It was so important that it was protected in the First Amendment, along with freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

But we have just finished an election cycle when we have seen newsmen and -women weep on air for a candidate. The inauguration again brought tears to the eyes of supposedly professional members of the media. Does it not strike anyone else that when newspersons have become so invested in a person’s success they can no longer be looked at to report objectively and truthfully on that person and his administration? If Nixon had been this adored by the press, Watergate would still be just a hotel.

When the news bureaus have been co-opted as extensions of the White House press office, it is a very bad thing, regardless of who the president is. And, it is thoroughly disingenuous for the media to have nothing but criticism and rancor for Republicans and undying love and affection for Democrats, while expecting us to believe it has nothing to do with party. We’re smarter than that.

We need newspersons who will report the news and allow us to draw our conclusions. We need newspersons who are committed to asking hard questions of every president. We need newspersons who understand that while we grasp the historical significance of President Obama’s election, wish him well, and respect him as the leader of this nation, there are over 58 million Americans who did not vote for him, nearly half (22) of the 50 states are still “red,” and some of us our here are still clinging to God and our guns. The president is most certainly entitled to his inauguration, and he is entitled to the spoils of victory, but we are entitled to unbiased and un-spun information.

A media that is in a president’s back pocket (especially when it was largely responsible for the destruction of his predecessor) is bad for the president and the nation. It is allowing the fox to guard the henhouse. And President Obama needs to learn one huge lesson from John McCain: live by the press, die by the press. If they make you, they can destroy you.

And so there are really two solutions here. One, the mainstream media could demand and reward true, genuine objectivity (and punish its lack) from its correspondents and anchors. A just-the-facts reporting style would certainly be welcome by me. That’s probably too much to ask, so alternatively the press could just give up any semblance of objectivity and fully disclose their leanings. “Good evening and welcome to the CBS Evening News. I’m Katie Couric, I am a liberal Democrat who voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 elections, and here’s my version of the news.” Honesty goes a long way with me.