Presumptive president-elect Barack Obama (the polls may differ in their closeness, but all of them - even without counting the younger, cell-phone-only generation -  show him ahead, so I'm not harboring any delusions) "does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," according to his press secretary. On this, it seems that he would disagree with quite a few of his powerful supporters in Congress (and the UCC, of which Obama's home church is a part).

Many on the right (and in the libertarian camp) fear such a reinstatement because one of its targets would more than likely be conservative talk radio. Under the doctrine, views expressed in such an outlet would have to be balanced by "progressive" views.

But many congressional Democrats, as well as members of the "mainstream" media, seem to have very little interest in "balancing" other outlets. In Arianna Huffington's book, Right is Wrong: How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded the Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe, she writes:

"A key to understanding the fanatical Right's takeover of the Republican Party and how these ideas spread to the rest of the country is looking at the role of the media - not the Fox News pseudo-newsmen or the talk radio blowhards - but the respectable, supposedly liberal media. Without the enabling of the traditional media - with their obsession with 'balance' and their pathological devotion to the idea that truth is always found in the middle - the radical Right would never have been able to have its ideas taken seriously. If not for the media's appeals to balance, movement conservatism would have been laughed out of the court of public opinion long ago."

It is hard for me to take someone seriously who does not acknowledge that there is plenty of "public opinion" out there - including a number of oft-shunned Democrats - that favor a pro-life position. That Huffington feels it is the media's duty to silence a view that she believes is so obviously wrong (and therefore must be) is very telling, but it's not like she can make it so - she's "only" a journalist and not a member of Congress, right?

With one week to go, my mind's made up on this year's ballot, but for those who are still undecided, a little help in finest of American traditions.  Peer pressure.  

Everyone's different.  Some of you want to be the sheep in the crowd.  Others will want to be the rebel without a cause.  Just like with arbritrary statistics, there's something for everyone and it all depends on how you want to frame the question.  

Let's start with possibly respected institutions.  Do you value the Union-Tribune's endorsements, or would you use them as a guide for what to vote against?  Same question for the alphabet soups of the AARP, ACLU, CTA, SDTA, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.  You're in luck.  The UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies library maintains a chart of this year's statewide ballot initiatives indexed by the endorsements and recommendations of 42 different media organizations and other groups.  

On the other hand, we all know that money talks in an election cycle.  Maybe your neighbor or supervisor doesn't like yard signs, or just won't talk politics.  That's no excuse for not knowing their preferences.  Many campaign contributions are reportable to the government, and the magic of the internet has made that information accessible from the nearest desktop.  Campaignmoney.com is one of several sites offering campaign contribution data, allowing random people on the internet to search by name or just browse their zip code to see who supported whom financially.  

I've been a big fan of these types of sites since seeing the impact of the KnowThyNeighbor project a few years ago, and really wish that project (or a similar effort) included data on the current effort to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.  Public disclosure laws can only make a difference when public records become truly accessible.

Just remember that while your ballot might be secret, at least until someone succeeds in the effort to mandate printed receipts that your supervisor, union official or spouse can demand to see, little else is.  This is the information age.

Matthew Dowd, who led President Bush's campaign for reelection in 2004, recently told the New York Times that "The only things that are going to change the equation of the election are the four debates." This is due to the plethora of partisan and biased media sources that the public is confronted with every day. As Dowd pointed out, "The average person has 90 channels. They get all the dot-coms. They all get a newspaper. There is so much flow of information that they just begin to discount it all."

And for that, we can breathe a sigh of relief, although I fear that Dowd might give the average person too much credit in saying the media will be depreciated. But if the most influential factor in this election will be the candidates' own voices - through debates and interviews - then I hope the moderators and interviewers will break with the improprieties of the past several months and truly give both sides an even playing field.

As my TV shifted from round-the-clock sports to round-the-clock politics this past weekend, it also did something else.  It lost my interest.

I understand the need for party conventions.  I'm fascinated by them, in fact.  Politics is face-to-face talk, back slapping and hand shaking, not policy memos and staff opinions.  Decisions need to be made, and conventions are where that's done at the highest level.  Deals will be struck and compromises will be reached.  There may even be some hurt feelings.  But that's not what's being covered.

Network coverage of the political conventions has been like watching coverage of a major sporting event, except the on-air personalities are spending all their time interviewing the fans and cheerleaders.  Fluff over substance, like trying to live on a diet of cotton candy.  Feels good in the short term, but probably not the most fulfilling option available.

Want to make it newsworthy?  Embed a camera back stage.  Get some fixed cameras in place in the back rooms and wait for the fireworks, a la CBS' Big Brother.  Find an issue that's actually in contention and cover both sides of the debate.  But don't show partisan speeches and "voting" that's a foregone conclusion and call it news.  It's as much of a farce as the so-called "Live" coverage of the Olympics was last week. 

My friends, with the DNC this week, I thought it might be nice to look into how political blogging can explode on the media.  Let me tell you a tale that is now being affectionately referred to as 'Pizzagate'.

Last Monday, a pizza delivery driver named Anna delivered $30 worth of pizza to a house.  The twist to this is that the pizza was being delivered to Curt Bramble, Senate Majority Leader for the state of Utah.  Mr. Bramble then allegedly began to berate the delivery driver, harass her manager over the phone, and even tried using his position as Senate Majority Leader to force them to accept a personal check.  When they finally agreed to accept a check, it wasn't to his liking, so he then finally put the bill on his American Express card.  All in all, not the best way for anyone to treat someone who provides you food, and definitely not how a political figure should act.

But, the story doesn't end here.  In fact, it just begins.  For, you see, it turns out this young lady is a blogger.  A blogger who let out her frustrations over this in a post, as any blogger in her situation would.  She didn't name names, but she did leave enough clues that it was obvious whom she was writing about.  That's when it hit the fan.

I hereby declare a week long moratorium on all political news that is dispersed through the Fourth and Fifth Estate; by this I mean newspapers, magazines, network and cable television, radio, streaming video, and blogs.  I command Arriana Huffington, Kos, Slate, et al, to go on a weeklong vacation, preferably where they can get some sun. Effective, immediately, Fox is banished off the air; in fact, they will be shut down indefinitely as punishment for crimes against truth.  Imagine, a week without the smarmy presence of Sean Hannity and his ever-changing cast of airheads. Gosh, we would be free from the nasally harangue of Greta and the bottom feeding antics of Nancy as well) All right...no John Stewart for me even though everyone knows he's just a comedy show...right?

 No Glen Beck, no Katie regurgitating manufactured "facts", no Stephen Colbert coddling cracker musicians, no foolish John McCain campaign videos, no using my campaign donations to counter his nonsense, no Paris Hilton videos, though I have to say you were the high point of the week, dear. 

I'm really surprised by the amount of press coverage lately on the Libertarian party.

From Jesse Ventura being interviewed on Al Jazeera to even Time Magazine doing an article on the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr. It's all rather interesting, to say the least. The current trend, in most news articles, is that the media is gearing up to blame the Libertarian party if EITHER candidate loses.

Some stations, like CBS, are already claiming the Libertarian party is going to cost John McCain votes. While other news media sources are claiming that Sen. Obama may be hurt  -- vote-wise -- by the Libertarian party. 

Whichever side it is, the meaning is clear -- we're not wanted here.

This Independence Day makes me nostalgic for bygone days when every large gathering did not erupt into angry polarized discussions of the state of the country. The news media keeps us in a constantly inflamed state of being, each day creating issues out of non-issues, in order to justify their own existence.

At the Coronado Community Center, where I work out most mornings, there are two large televisions in the front of the gym. One is always tuned to Fox, and the other usually CNN. Though Fox is more overtly inflammatory, CNN is not far behind.

It's not just cable television, with shrieking Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly, but the "network news" outlets as well. Recently CBS's Katie Couric covered a story which asserted that Obama's "background sparked rumors that he had studied at a radical madrassa, or Quranic school" without ever noting that the rumors were false.  

Last week, Citizen Voices bloggers were asked to express our opinions, feelings, fears and insights about same-sex marriage, and to engage in a dialogue with you, contributors and readers, who were asked to share the same.

It was an eye-opening experience, and I look forward to more of these directed topics before the November election. For me, last week's discussion was especially meaningful, as was reading the personal and sometimes deeply moving stories that readers shared about their own experiences with love, heartache, miracles, and being honest with the people in their lives.

The truth will set you free, so the saying goes. But the truth can sometimes hurt and often does when it isn't what we expected to hear. 

Assuming we can form and articulate our political opinions, is the fear of hurting another person (or ourselves) what makes sharing specifically political ideas challenging for many people?

Thanks to Salon.com (who are spies like me and listen to right-wing talk shows to wrap the liberal mind around Republican dogma), a Fox News story, inspired the appropriate response of "how tacky" from Obama supporters and non-entrenched GOP voters alike. Along with other stories, the Obama camp has now responded in kind.

The Fox News story about Michelle Obama, accompanied by popular conservative blogger Michelle Malkin (using her best pundit-savvy voice), ran a caption stating "Stop Making fun of Obama's Baby Mama." 

Now, the irony of identifying the Democratic candidate's wife of 16 years, a Harvard trained attorney and professional in her own right, as the mere vessel of Obama's lineage a few days after the New York Times' headline story about her impeccable grace, style, and elegance is vintage smear-machine Fox News. The tongue-in-cheek, satirical tone of "Faux News," as it's commonly referred to in liberal parlance, often turns straightforward news stories into Saturday Night Live skits. 

Sure, for any sticklers saying "what's wrong with the caption?" Senator Obama's wife is in fact the mother of their two children. But, Fox News' use of the phrase "Baby Mama" clearly diminishes Michelle Obama's role in the senator's life as well as minimizing Senator Obama's role in his kids' lives.