"One wonders if liberals believe there is any element of our lives that would not be better under government control. But imagine what a nightmare it will be if things devolve to the point where government chooses who can report news in a newspaper, or on radio, television or the Internet.

"Defeating this power grab depends upon the free flow of reliable information, which is a significant challenge, given the degree to which the mainstream media has abandoned its duty to produce balanced and accurate reporting to keep the citizenry well informed.

"Barack Obama believes there is too much information available to people and that they can’t tell the good from the bad. That’s insulting. The answer is more information, not less, and less information is what we’ll have with government management of the news."

Writer James "Smokey" Shott's entire column is here.

Now, as I've done probably 6 or 7 times before, after reading Smokey's latest rant I fired off a letter to the editor in response. Do you think it ever saw print? No.

The Bluefield Daily Telegraph seems to be very selective which letters to the editor they choose to print. If it's from a conservative reader, it sees publication. If it's from anyone who leans to the left, forget it.

Here is my unprinted letter to the editor, written in response to Shott's column referenced above:

Leave it to a right-wing pundit to dream up a conspiracy by the Obama administration where there is none.

So, we are apparently supposed to believe that the sinister administration is actively pursuing a plan to take over the news media, based on some pretty flimsy (actually nonexistent) evidence and a vague similarity between a title in the report in question, and a remark made by Emanuel. While we're at it, why not believe the government is responsible for the state of today's news media? It's all part of the plan, you know!

The tabloid has cred.  (Well, until now it did)  And some conservatives and anti-Obama liberals are complaining about the media’s refusal to “cover” the Enquirer’s web splashes about then-Senate candidate Obama’s alleged extramarital affair with a finance staffer, Vera Baker. The lead reads: “PRESIDENT OBAMA in a shocking cheating scandal after being caught in a D.C. hotel with a former campaign aide.”

 Is the media covering for Obama? Are they too afraid to ask the question, fearing ridicule from their peers?

Whatever collective motivations may be operating on this story, there is a simpler explanation for the lack of coverage: the story has no legs. It doesn’t even have thighs. It is, as Slate’s John Dickerson said, an “investigation about an alleged rumor,” but we don’t know who is doing the investigating and what precisely ought to be investigated.

Also, when this rumor came up during the campaign, mainstream news organizations did investigate, and found that there was no evidence to support the charge. There are no new developments to speak of, and the Enquirer has already revised its claim about “an alleged surveillance tape.” Says the Enquirer: “Now, the investigators are searching for a hotel surveillance videotape”.

Investigators? That implies something criminal. No, no. We learn that these investigators are “top anti-Obama operatives” who are offering a million dollars for solid evidence.

This “affair” is destined to become a white whale for right-wing haters and nutcases who have no other impulse than to bring down a president they “know” in their hearts is illegitimate. It’s the birth certificate, all over again.

"I don't know. I'll just tell you this, if this passes and it's five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented — I am leaving the country. I'll go to Costa Rica."

You hear that, guys? Health-care reform will not only cover 30 million Americans and reduce the deficit, but it'll also get rid of Rush Limbaugh! This is, like, the best bill ever!

Unfortunately, it turns out that Rush was merely referring to seeking medical care outside the U.S. Which is still pretty funny, since the country he chose, Costa Rica, has a universal health care system… you know, the kind he doesn't want to see in this country.

Nearly every editorial published in the online edition shows a marked right-wing bias. From my time there, I know the paper used to run opinion columns that offered a more liberal view, to balance out columns that were of a more conservative bent. I wrote one for about a year, and the paper would run syndicated columns from other writers who, like me, leaned somewhat to the left.

This was fair and balanced delivery of the opinions of the day, from writers who came from all parts of the political spectrum. Sadly, this seems to be a thing of the past at the Bluefield Daily Telegraph.

I first thought this might be an issue with online reprint rights to the syndicated columns. Even taking the financial aspect of this into consideration, it is the job of the paper to provide a forum for political discussion that encompasses everyone. As it stands, when you read the online edition, you get one world view shoved into your face – the conservative one.

The late Tom Colley, a conservative, and executive editor of the paper, believed in providing such fair and balanced coverage. On the basis of my frequent contributions to the Letters to the Editor section, he, along with then-publisher Gary Adkisson,  encouraged me to write a weekly column, even though 95% of the time he disagreed with what I wrote.

Taking the syndication issues out of the equation, there are surely more than a few qualified writers in the area, of the liberal persuasion, who would be able to contribute their thoughts on a regular basis. The conservative writers, obviously, have every right to speak their mind. Is this option being offered to prospective contributors who "lean to the left?"

The Bluefield Daily Telegraph does its readers a huge disservice by not offering the other side of the story when it comes to the political issues of the day. It's their job to do so, and they are failing miserably.

How long did it take George Bush (whom the opinion writer has professed in the past to admire) to make a public statement on shoe bomber Richard Reid? Six days. Did the writer complain back then? For some reason I believe probably not.

He intimates Obama doesn't take terrorism seriously without offering any real evidence of this other than to regurgitate the standard right-wing talking points, including the accusation the president won't even use the words "terrorist" or "terrorist attack". This is an outright lie.

During Obama's radio address on the attempted Christmas Day bombing, he used the word "terrorist" or a variation at least six times. It seems strange to me that Obama's detractors would make such a baseless and actually silly claim, so easily refuted, about such a serious matter. The writer should have at least troubled himself to look at the actual transcript of the speech instead of just recycling what other right-wing pundits have been saying. I guess it's easier to write a column if you don't bother to fact-check while writing it.

He wrote, " He didn’t grasp the seriousness of the situation, and he sped through a weak public statement that left too much unsaid so he could get back out on the golf course." Now, whether the president's statement was weak or strong is a matter of opinion. But the writer's implication that Obama was only interested in resuming his vacation is amusing, since he staunchly supported George W. Bush, who was infamous for taking regular (and lengthy) vacations even very early on in his presidency Oh, the hypocrisy.

He even accuses the president of giving the war on terror "back seat" status so he can focus on his "radical" domestic agenda. Again, we have an accusation being made with absolutely nothing to back it up. This seems to be his writing style – sling lots of mud and hope something sticks – reminiscent of other right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

I will defend to the death this opinion writer's right to criticize whomever he wants to criticize. Unfortunately, when a writer is blinded by his or her own bias, it's all too easy to put words to paper without doing a thorough check of the actual facts of the topic at hand. This columnist is a somewhat competent writer, and it's a shame he chooses to throw around half-truths and misstatements of fact in his zeal to attack anything and everything Obama has done (or hasn't done).

Taitz has been laughed out of courtroom after courtroom as she doggedly pursues her so-called "case" against Obama. She's prime joke fodder, but a recent post on her blog indicates she might be a tad dangerous, too:

"What is the real intention of this Kenyan, Indonesian communist usurper? Is it to provide security for us or to destroy our security? Judge for yourself.

"Seeing targeted destruction of our economy, our security, dissipation of American jobs, massive corruption in the Government, Congress Department of Justice and Judiciary, it might be time to start rallies and protests using our second amendment right to bare arms and organise in militias."

Sounds like a call to arms to me…. and possibly to many others, in which Taitz's already bad year may just be an inkling of what's to come for her. Here's a rundown of her low points in 2009:

• August 3: MSNBC's David Shuster calls out Taitz on live TV after she lashes out at "Obama's brownshirts" in the media. Said Shuster: "You're making a reference to Nazi Germany, and to a lot of us who lost relatives in the Holocaust, this is deeply, deeply offensive."
• August 6: In a sign of an intra-Birther power struggle, fellow conspiracy theorist Andy Martin publicly declares it's time to "shut down the Orly Taitz circus."
• Sept. 16: Federal Judge Clay Land, who is presiding over a Georgia Birther case, belittles Taitz in a widely circulated order that accuses Taitz of failing to understand legal principles grasped by "any middle school civics student." Land adds: "Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so."
• Sept. 17: A fellow member of the California bar files a complaint in response to Taitz's call — during an interview with TPMmuckraker — for Judge Land to be tried for treason.
• Sept. 21: Army Captain Connie Rhodes, Taitz's own client in the Georgia Birther case, sends a letter to the judge renouncing Taitz as her counsel. Rhodes, who sent the letter while deploying to Iraq, tells the judge that Taitz submitted an emergency filing without Rhodes' permission or blessing.
• October 13: A frustrated Land fines Taitz $20,000 for repeated frivolous filings. "When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law," he writes. "When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice."
• October 14: Appearing on Joy Behar's show, Taitz is forced to explain why she described the judge as "delusional":
• November 12: An affidavit from a prospective witness in a California Birther case alleges that Taitz asked witnesses to perjure themselves — and much worse.

Anyone who supports this woman or her cause should be ashamed of themselves.

According to Think Progress, the proclamation stated, “WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions…

WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaska’s citizens with advance directives.

WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives.”

This is quite different from the argument that Palin continues to make on her Facebook page, “Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.”

She said the consultations could be coercive, “With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.”

So it seems that Palin was in favor of the same “coercive death panels” last year that she now opposes. Apparently before she wanted to run for president end of life counseling was fine to encourage, but when Obama proposes the same thing, they are death panels. Palin’s obvious hypocrisy and flip flops are what make her such a joke. I am sure the cult of Sarah will have some sort of lame defense, or maybe Palin wants to kill grandma too.

Time for a fact check, my right wing friends – politics is a dirty business and adherents of both parties have been guilty of gutterball tactics. Everyone’s favorite bellowing right wing pundit, Rush Limbaugh, once called Chelsea Clinton “a dog”. Hillary Clinton was, and continues to be, the butt of jokes regarding her husband’s dalliances, her own physical appearance, and even her sexual preferences. And let’s not forget the endless baseless accusations bandied about concerning Barack Obama’s citizenship, his “palling around with terrorists”, his patriotism and his religious persuasion.

Still, this type of nonsense is part and parcel of a prominent politician’s life. Countless leaders in our government have endured this, remained above the fray, kept their head held high, and continued to serve. By resigning her governorship, Mrs. Palin shows that she simply doesn’t have what it takes to play the game. This is a person who many see as a potential presidential candidate? Would we want a president who has shown a remarkable lack of fortitude in walking away from a job because the going got tough? Would President Palin decide to step down the first time her approval ratings dropped or one of her measures failed in Congress?

Many on the right are spinning her resignation as a smart move in preparation for a 2012 presidential run. Of course! The best way to show you’re presidential material is to quit.

Deep down, not even those spouting the spin really believe it.

That being said, as a collective society we need to gain some perspective. Yes, Obama is the first black president to be elected, but he is not the “black president.” He is simply our next president. People are focusing far too much on what he symbolizes, rather than what he has done, or will do. We need not question the significance of his election, but we cannot judge him on superficial accomplishments alone. He is not a novelty president.

I’m not speaking to the ultra-conservative base at McCain rallies. I’m not pointing to citizens hoarding weapons like children hoard their toys, fearing Obama will take them away.

This is for my fellow Obama supporters: We voted Obama into office, and it’s our responsibility to hold him accountable for his decisions. It’s our responsibility to criticize and praise as necessary. President-elect Obama is going to have to make the most difficult decisions possible, and in a very short period of time.

He will succeed and he will fail. It’s inevitable. We need to be ready for some great decisions, and some we may not like. This is how it goes for a president. Certain decisions will be made for the benefit of the country, not the benefit of a few.

While America bids farewell to the Bradley Effect, we need to look out for the “Kennedy Effect.” Obama has on numerous occasions been compared to John F. Kennedy for his ability to inspire hope, his confidence and charm. JFK was a handsome fresh face against an effective, but tiresome Eisenhower administration, and – well, Richard Nixon.

Obama replaces a president with a 22-percent public approval rating, and ran against John McCain. That’s where the comparison should end. Throughout history, JFK has been struck with an aura of brilliance. But as history continues to hash up the past, it’s clear Kennedy’s mythology did more than his policies.

Kennedy showed intelligence and resolve during the Cuban Missile Crisis, only because he failed miserably during the Bay of Pigs invasion. And yes, he threw money into the space program, but it wasn’t out of love for science. It was a power move against Soviet technology and influence.

Unfortunately, Kennedy died just as he was beginning to have an aggressive domestic agenda, yet the legend of Kennedy lives on much stronger than his policies ever did.

This shouldn’t happen with Barack Obama. Granted, he is a charismatic figure whom many millions admire, and his message of hope and inspiration are by no means something to turn away from. But we must find a balance. America needs to accept that the honeymoon is over.

The problems facing our country haven’t changed. When I hit the polls on Election Day, I didn’t select a black presidential candidate. I didn’t select charm or charisma. I didn’t select the next JFK. I selected the candidate I believe will change the country for the best. That was the easy part. Now comes the real work. The drapes in the Oval Office may be changing, but the challenges and responsibilities of the president haven’t.