Predictably, media outlets worldwide are taking the debate of military action in Syria to the press and airwaves and just as with the responses from individuals, the various media outlets openly opine with a wide variety of reasons for either the benefit or the detriment of doing so. And, just as with the invasion of Iraq, the question of whether or not the US should take military action in Syria is generating a wide range of heated personal responses from around the globe.

Does the media convey information clearly, neutrally, accurately, or has it too often become something else, particularly sensationalist? Sadly, I'm finding it to be the latter.

When a black high school honor student, Kiera Wilmot, was arrested for blowing up a bottle bomb, and misrepresented it as a science project, the media launched a blitz on her behalf.  The ACLU took up the cause as well.

California's energy rate structure is at stake during this state legislative session. Assembly Bill 327, sponsored by Assemblymember Henry Perea (D-Fresno), would allow the Public Utilities Commission to create a more equitable rate structure.

Perea and staff made clear what the provisions of AB 327 lay out for energy rates in California:

The British Parliament has determined that the Commonwealth shall not be going to war. David Cameron, though apparently disappointed, appears to be completely bound by the officially nonbinding resolution. The British Prime Minister, who possesses the Constitutional authority to authorize military action, lacks the political support to do so without the consent of the legislature.

Interventionist hawks of the partisan variety sure are having a hard time holding a position on the Syrian civil war. Only the bipartisan War Party hawks of the John McCain and Lindsey Graham sort seem to think an attack on Syria is a good idea. But what about the conservatives who paint President Obama as "weak," (despite drones, spying, and Libya) for dragging his feet to an intervention Americans, and sometimes they, don't support? Why, continue the ad hominems, of course!

Katherine Welles / Shutterstock.com

Demand, meet Supply

Amidst some disenchantment with both major political parties, the chart above shows, when looking across the 50 states, the share of votes earned by candidates that were not either Democratic or Republican has fallen significantly for U.S. House of Representative elections since 2000.

It has been five years since the economic crisis of 2008. A recent Gallup poll conducted in August shows that 58 percent of Americans working full time or part time believe they are making markedly higher amounts of money. The poll did not define what "a lot" or "a little" meant, but left it up to the respondent to decide for themselves. In other words, people differ in what "a lot" of money is.

A quick glimpse through the Drudge Report the other night brought up quite a few articles focused on racial issues. While I know that Matt Drudge lives for controversy, I still had to wonder whether this was indicative of our nation as a whole. I am always hesitant to write about racial incidents given my background (white, middle-income, small town/suburban). What in the world do I know about it? I grew up in a relatively homogeneous community, and I live in one today. Still, I am concerned.