--Arnold Schwarzenegger’s daughter told a magazine she escaped to London to get some perspective on the scandal and divorce of her parents. "It isn't as big a story over here," Katherine Schwarzenegger said. She goes on to say, "...I've always been way closer to my mother." Ouch. No matter what he has been through so far, hearing comments like that has to be crushing. One of my biggest fears, was my actions would cause my children to disown or pull away from me out of anger and embarrassment. I was lucky. We are still close and love each other. I hope Arnold can repair this. To lose the love of one's children is a fate I wish for no one.
---Michele Bachman says she is a "submissive" wife. She is alluding to her brand of fundamentalist Christianity that quotes St. Paul telling wives to be submissive to their husbands. We already know she suffers from migraines which her staff says have rendered her unable to work for days on end and now we face a possible president who has to check with hubby to make sure he approves of her decisions. Too harsh or reason to worry?
---This is the hottest July and most probably August in Texas' history. They are in the middle of an historic draught. We have had the worst tornados in over 100 years wreaking havoc in the mid west and south to go along with floods of biblical proportions throughout the center of the country. Glaciers are melting at rates unseen in the last century and a Northwest Passage has opened for ships. Yet, 47% of Americans say they don't believe the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change.
---In San Francisco, Mayor Ed Lee became mayor because he promised not to run for a full term. Now, he says he changed his mind and is going to run. Are you surprised a pupil of Willie Brown would go back on his word? Does it matter? Did he lie or con the people who appointed him or the people in the City? Can you think of a politician who has ever been punished for going back on his word? Don't we get the elected officials we deserve?
---Is anyone watching Keith Olbermann on his new network? Is he increasing the ratings? Is the show better or worse?
---Obama takes a lot of heart over his lack of negotiating skills. Has anyone looked at Biden lately? Perhaps it's catching or they are two peas in a pod. He goes to Congress to negotiate on the debt ceiling and doesn't get tax increases. He talks Democrats into supporting an extension of the Bush tax cuts. He doesn't get any agreement to close tax loopholes and gives in on changing Medicare and yet somehow comes out of all this unscathed with Obama taking the blame. Did Biden find Reagan's Teflon suit?
---Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin proposed a budget plan, which the House passed with only Republican votes. The GOP cited it as proof they had ideas too and said it was a blueprint for what they wanted to do when they gain control of Congress and the White House. Among other things, Ryan's budget would privatize Medicare out of existence and shred the nation's social safety net. Yet, when nominees for the debt ceiling "super" committee were revealed, the fair-haired golden boy was conspicuously missing. Is his name and plan that toxic a political liability now for the GOP?
---If you go to the Iowa straw poll, GOP presidential hopefuls will pay the $30 entry fee, feed you, entertain you, even provide air conditioned tents to get you to vote for them. How is this not bribery or vote buying and is it legal? (Sorry, I tried to use legal and Republican in the same sentence. My bad.)
---In Britain, they are trying to figure out why people engaged in days of rioting and looting and stealing what they could not buy or get in any other way. In America, Goldman Sachs is trying to figure out how to recruit the best of the looters.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
IT'S A GIRL?
In its quest to control the population, China limited the number of children in a family. The result was conscious decisions to abort female fetuses in favor of males. In India, between 4.2 and 12.1 million abortions were performed due to the fact the gender was female. In many Middle Eastern and Islamic fundamentalist nations, similar preferences are expressed. We in the industrialized, first world, West are shocked and scandalized by such decisions and preferences and dismiss them as resulting from backward, primitive, sexist societies. We take smug satisfaction we have evolved beyond such things.
USA Today is reporting on a new technology that can tell pregnant women the sex of the baby they are carrying as early as 7 weeks into the pregnancy. This technology has been available in Europe and is about to be made available in this country. Women would know months earlier than ever before the gender of their baby. The technology will be invaluable for women with high-risk pregnancies where the baby could have genetic anomalies or diseases. However, ethicists are concerned parents could use the early knowledge to abort a fetus because it is the wrong gender.
Every so often, the values or morals which lead humans to make certain decisions totally elude my understanding. As long as the baby is as healthy as possible, what difference does it make what the gender is? Is it a valid concern to think American parents would choose to end a pregnancy because the baby would be female? There have been concerns for years genetic testing could be used to produce designer babies. Parents will want blond hair and blue eyes. They will want to control genes and effect weight and height and intelligence. Some scientists think you could control for sexual orientation. Aldus Huxley's Brave New World has arrived. I have not seen evidence to support a significant number of designer babies brought forth in this country. It wouldn't be the first time my naïveté has blinded me. Of all the reasons to control a pregnancy, or end it, the gender of the baby seems beyond the pale.
I know sexism is alive and well in America. Christine Craft calls it the invisible "ism", and says America decided to attack racism in electing Obama president, while leaving sexism, in the figure of Hillary Clinton, to be fixed another day. There are still glass ceilings and women at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, (the most evil organization in America today) are few and far between. Should ethicists really be concerned American parents will end a pregnancy because they don't want a female baby?
The "choice" about what to do about any pregnancy must be left up to the woman. I never cease to be amazed by the regressive rhetoric of government being too big, too intrusive, too powerful and yet they are quite willing to have the government tell a woman what she can do with her body and the kind of family she will create. The same principal that allows the government to "prevent" someone from having an abortion can also "require" someone to have an abortion. The problem with choice is that with freedom comes license and it means people can make choices some of us feel to be unethical or even immoral.
It saddens, worries and angers me to think someone would think so little of female life...value it so little...feel loss if their child will be a girl and decide based on gender alone to end it. So, I ask you. Do you think ethicists have reason to be concerned? Are we no different in our sexism than India and China? How valuable or respected is the female gender in this country? Will prospective American parents use this technology to produce fewer females? Would anyone end a pregnancy based on the knowledge the fetus was male?
There will be those who feel the pendulum has already swung away from males and now females are in the catbird seat in this country. They will cite statistics showing the majority of college graduates are female. Law school and medical school classes are also majority female. They will look at rates of high school graduation and other indicators to show women are no longer a downtrodden minority, and males are the ones suffering from the competition. Even with this evidence, or because of it, is it time to produce fewer females and more males? Could you ever see you and your partner deciding to end a pregnancy because you didn't prefer the gender of the baby?
I am not an innocent bystander in this debate. I have a dog in this hunt. I have two daughters and two sons. I love them all beyond reason. My daughters are sharp and funny and intelligent. They are witty, compassionate and full of life. My sons are warm and open and bright. They are empathetic, loving and spontaneous. I cannot imagine life without them. (I wish I had been a more responsible and loving parent in choices I made) We were excited and thrilled by the news of each pregnancy. Doesn't everyone feel the same way? If not, why not?
I will not bemoan this new technology. I choose to believe most Americans will use it the way it was intended. We have not reached that level of hubris yet which would lead us to believe we can "design" the perfect family. Choice means allowing shallow or venal decisions to be made, but the same freedom gives opportunities to rise above petty needs or prejudices to something better. Do you agree?
USA Today is reporting on a new technology that can tell pregnant women the sex of the baby they are carrying as early as 7 weeks into the pregnancy. This technology has been available in Europe and is about to be made available in this country. Women would know months earlier than ever before the gender of their baby. The technology will be invaluable for women with high-risk pregnancies where the baby could have genetic anomalies or diseases. However, ethicists are concerned parents could use the early knowledge to abort a fetus because it is the wrong gender.
Every so often, the values or morals which lead humans to make certain decisions totally elude my understanding. As long as the baby is as healthy as possible, what difference does it make what the gender is? Is it a valid concern to think American parents would choose to end a pregnancy because the baby would be female? There have been concerns for years genetic testing could be used to produce designer babies. Parents will want blond hair and blue eyes. They will want to control genes and effect weight and height and intelligence. Some scientists think you could control for sexual orientation. Aldus Huxley's Brave New World has arrived. I have not seen evidence to support a significant number of designer babies brought forth in this country. It wouldn't be the first time my naïveté has blinded me. Of all the reasons to control a pregnancy, or end it, the gender of the baby seems beyond the pale.
I know sexism is alive and well in America. Christine Craft calls it the invisible "ism", and says America decided to attack racism in electing Obama president, while leaving sexism, in the figure of Hillary Clinton, to be fixed another day. There are still glass ceilings and women at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, (the most evil organization in America today) are few and far between. Should ethicists really be concerned American parents will end a pregnancy because they don't want a female baby?
The "choice" about what to do about any pregnancy must be left up to the woman. I never cease to be amazed by the regressive rhetoric of government being too big, too intrusive, too powerful and yet they are quite willing to have the government tell a woman what she can do with her body and the kind of family she will create. The same principal that allows the government to "prevent" someone from having an abortion can also "require" someone to have an abortion. The problem with choice is that with freedom comes license and it means people can make choices some of us feel to be unethical or even immoral.
It saddens, worries and angers me to think someone would think so little of female life...value it so little...feel loss if their child will be a girl and decide based on gender alone to end it. So, I ask you. Do you think ethicists have reason to be concerned? Are we no different in our sexism than India and China? How valuable or respected is the female gender in this country? Will prospective American parents use this technology to produce fewer females? Would anyone end a pregnancy based on the knowledge the fetus was male?
There will be those who feel the pendulum has already swung away from males and now females are in the catbird seat in this country. They will cite statistics showing the majority of college graduates are female. Law school and medical school classes are also majority female. They will look at rates of high school graduation and other indicators to show women are no longer a downtrodden minority, and males are the ones suffering from the competition. Even with this evidence, or because of it, is it time to produce fewer females and more males? Could you ever see you and your partner deciding to end a pregnancy because you didn't prefer the gender of the baby?
I am not an innocent bystander in this debate. I have a dog in this hunt. I have two daughters and two sons. I love them all beyond reason. My daughters are sharp and funny and intelligent. They are witty, compassionate and full of life. My sons are warm and open and bright. They are empathetic, loving and spontaneous. I cannot imagine life without them. (I wish I had been a more responsible and loving parent in choices I made) We were excited and thrilled by the news of each pregnancy. Doesn't everyone feel the same way? If not, why not?
I will not bemoan this new technology. I choose to believe most Americans will use it the way it was intended. We have not reached that level of hubris yet which would lead us to believe we can "design" the perfect family. Choice means allowing shallow or venal decisions to be made, but the same freedom gives opportunities to rise above petty needs or prejudices to something better. Do you agree?
Sunday, August 7, 2011
WHO DO MEN SAY I AM?
I almost fell out of my chair when I saw a quote from Bill O'Reilly in which he contends the confessed assassin in Norway could not be considered a Christian. "...No one who believes in Jesus could kill like Anders Behring Breivik did." Either Bill and his ilk think their audience is stupid or ignorant or they just don't care whether what they say has any semblance of truth within it. It is fascinating to see the regressive Christian movement try to distance itself from this act of lunacy when the reality is Breivik acted well within the traditions and norms of fundamentalist Christianity.
Is O'Reilly ignorant? No. Is he well read? Yes. Did he know how surreal his statement sounded and how completely contrary to history it is? I suspect he, like Hanbaugh, Beck, Ingram, Coulter and company, is willing to say anything to deflect attention and criticism from a belief system which cannot hold up in the light of scripture and through which more harm has been done throughout the world than by any other religious system. No one who believes in Jesus would commit an act like this? He can't be a Christian, because true Christians don't act like this. Really? We don't have enough room to list all of the examples BillO and the rest ignore, but at least some need to be pulled forward for a re-examination.
Where to start...How about Manifest Destiny...it was the dominant Christian belief of the 19th century. God intended for the United States to own and control the entire continent. The movement to expand across the US was driven heavily by the belief it was what God intended. It was this religious fervor, which allowed, and then justified, the massacre of the native peoples who occupied the land God intended for the good white Anglo Protestants. These were heathens and God or Jesus had no problem with either wiping them out, or converting them. Americans went to church on Sunday and started Indian wars on Monday. Good Christians were the founders and charter members of the slave trade. How many thousands, some say millions, died on coffin ships during the trip from Africa to the West? Ironically, "Amazing Grace" was written by a slave ship captain who had finally seen the error of his ways. His fellow English Christians excoriated him and his beliefs. Germans went to war in World War II wearing belt buckles emblazoned with "Got mitt us". The Roman Catholic leaders in Austria and Hungary and Poland welcomed the Nazis with open arms and assisted and approved of their final solution concerning Jews. Good Christians were the foundation of Jim Crow and segregation throughout the South. Self proclaimed Christians blew up black churches and lynched and burned out those fighting for civil rights. Yes, Martin Luther King was a Christian, but go back and read what regressive fundamentalist Christians had to say about him and the attacks he endured because he proclaimed non-violence to be the central message of the Jewish carpenter from Nazareth.
What is perhaps the ultimate in hypocrisy is to hear these pseudo-Christians like O'Reilley and Ingram and Hanbaugh talk as if Jesus' teachings have some role in their lives. No communities in this nation more epitomize living out the Christian ethos than do the Amish and Mennonites along with the Catholic Worker movement and numerous others, and yet these are the very same groups which regressives, like the afore mentioned pundits, attack ceaselessly for their naïveté and foolishness and their lack of patriotism because their religious beliefs lead them to embrace pacifism and non-violence and to oppose American foreign policy. President Bush's church, the Methodists, as well as the American Catholic bishops, opposed the war in Iraq. Did their opinions affect Bush? Did good Catholics like Santorum and Gingrich and many others change their positions when their church declared the war to be immoral?
The dirty little secret is a fundamentalist Christian carried out the attacks in Norway. The same strain of fundamentalism is alive and well in this nation. The murders of doctors who perform abortions...the bombing of clinics like the ones in Georgia...the attack on the federal building in Oklahoma...violence against gays and lesbians...are from the same cloth. The nativism and jingoism expressed by the man in Norway is a mirror image to the rhetoric we read or hear on a daily basis in this country. Look at the immigration debate and try and deny the language is eerily similar. The criticisms of Islam and the opposition to mosques and community centers could have been written by the same man who produced 1,500 pages of tripe in Norway. Do BillO and the rest ever listen to themselves? Do they have such disdain for their audience they think we don't listen? A man tries to blow up his underwear, another his shoe, still another a car in Times Square and all claim to be Muslim. Does regressive talk radio make any distinction between them and the vast majority of Muslims who have never attacked anyone? Do they distinguish between fundamental Islam and the mainstream? Or do they lump all Muslims into the same batch and declare it to be a philosophy, which encourages violence. Could there be a more violent religion on earth than Christianity as practiced by the fundamentalists for whom Jesus is an excuse to kill anyone who disagrees with them and whose banner regressives proudly hold aloft?
What regressives and regressive corporate media are concerned about tamping down is a discussion about the difference between fundamentalism and the main stream in religion. Bachman, Cain, Romney, Pawlenty, Perry, Palin, and Gingrich, along with Fox, the Wall Street Journal and anything owned by Rupert Murdoch, The Weekly Standard and much of corporate media cannot afford to have real Christianity arise in this nation. Can you imagine a budget debate, immigration discussion, foreign policy decision made by Christians who read Matthew 25 or are committed to turning the other cheek, loving their enemies and forgiving an infinite number of times? What would our economy look like if consumers refused to buy the next great thing or gadget or go into debt to maintain the lifestyle fundamentalist Christianity touts?
Fundamentalist Christianity is anti-democratic, anti-pluralism, anti-intellectual, intolerant, and judgmental. It is un-American, pro-autocratic regimes and certainly opposes equality of the races or sexes. It is no different than fundamental Islam or fundamental Judaism. When you are right and everyone else is wrong, violence is an acceptable means to accomplish your end of everyone believing exactly like you or else. The tragedy in Norway is another wakeup call for all who oppose fundamentalism in any form to rise up and lend their voices to a campaign to address it wherever it rears its head including the media and politics in this country.
Do I think Anders Behring Breivik is a Christian? What do you think?
Is O'Reilly ignorant? No. Is he well read? Yes. Did he know how surreal his statement sounded and how completely contrary to history it is? I suspect he, like Hanbaugh, Beck, Ingram, Coulter and company, is willing to say anything to deflect attention and criticism from a belief system which cannot hold up in the light of scripture and through which more harm has been done throughout the world than by any other religious system. No one who believes in Jesus would commit an act like this? He can't be a Christian, because true Christians don't act like this. Really? We don't have enough room to list all of the examples BillO and the rest ignore, but at least some need to be pulled forward for a re-examination.
Where to start...How about Manifest Destiny...it was the dominant Christian belief of the 19th century. God intended for the United States to own and control the entire continent. The movement to expand across the US was driven heavily by the belief it was what God intended. It was this religious fervor, which allowed, and then justified, the massacre of the native peoples who occupied the land God intended for the good white Anglo Protestants. These were heathens and God or Jesus had no problem with either wiping them out, or converting them. Americans went to church on Sunday and started Indian wars on Monday. Good Christians were the founders and charter members of the slave trade. How many thousands, some say millions, died on coffin ships during the trip from Africa to the West? Ironically, "Amazing Grace" was written by a slave ship captain who had finally seen the error of his ways. His fellow English Christians excoriated him and his beliefs. Germans went to war in World War II wearing belt buckles emblazoned with "Got mitt us". The Roman Catholic leaders in Austria and Hungary and Poland welcomed the Nazis with open arms and assisted and approved of their final solution concerning Jews. Good Christians were the foundation of Jim Crow and segregation throughout the South. Self proclaimed Christians blew up black churches and lynched and burned out those fighting for civil rights. Yes, Martin Luther King was a Christian, but go back and read what regressive fundamentalist Christians had to say about him and the attacks he endured because he proclaimed non-violence to be the central message of the Jewish carpenter from Nazareth.
What is perhaps the ultimate in hypocrisy is to hear these pseudo-Christians like O'Reilley and Ingram and Hanbaugh talk as if Jesus' teachings have some role in their lives. No communities in this nation more epitomize living out the Christian ethos than do the Amish and Mennonites along with the Catholic Worker movement and numerous others, and yet these are the very same groups which regressives, like the afore mentioned pundits, attack ceaselessly for their naïveté and foolishness and their lack of patriotism because their religious beliefs lead them to embrace pacifism and non-violence and to oppose American foreign policy. President Bush's church, the Methodists, as well as the American Catholic bishops, opposed the war in Iraq. Did their opinions affect Bush? Did good Catholics like Santorum and Gingrich and many others change their positions when their church declared the war to be immoral?
The dirty little secret is a fundamentalist Christian carried out the attacks in Norway. The same strain of fundamentalism is alive and well in this nation. The murders of doctors who perform abortions...the bombing of clinics like the ones in Georgia...the attack on the federal building in Oklahoma...violence against gays and lesbians...are from the same cloth. The nativism and jingoism expressed by the man in Norway is a mirror image to the rhetoric we read or hear on a daily basis in this country. Look at the immigration debate and try and deny the language is eerily similar. The criticisms of Islam and the opposition to mosques and community centers could have been written by the same man who produced 1,500 pages of tripe in Norway. Do BillO and the rest ever listen to themselves? Do they have such disdain for their audience they think we don't listen? A man tries to blow up his underwear, another his shoe, still another a car in Times Square and all claim to be Muslim. Does regressive talk radio make any distinction between them and the vast majority of Muslims who have never attacked anyone? Do they distinguish between fundamental Islam and the mainstream? Or do they lump all Muslims into the same batch and declare it to be a philosophy, which encourages violence. Could there be a more violent religion on earth than Christianity as practiced by the fundamentalists for whom Jesus is an excuse to kill anyone who disagrees with them and whose banner regressives proudly hold aloft?
What regressives and regressive corporate media are concerned about tamping down is a discussion about the difference between fundamentalism and the main stream in religion. Bachman, Cain, Romney, Pawlenty, Perry, Palin, and Gingrich, along with Fox, the Wall Street Journal and anything owned by Rupert Murdoch, The Weekly Standard and much of corporate media cannot afford to have real Christianity arise in this nation. Can you imagine a budget debate, immigration discussion, foreign policy decision made by Christians who read Matthew 25 or are committed to turning the other cheek, loving their enemies and forgiving an infinite number of times? What would our economy look like if consumers refused to buy the next great thing or gadget or go into debt to maintain the lifestyle fundamentalist Christianity touts?
Fundamentalist Christianity is anti-democratic, anti-pluralism, anti-intellectual, intolerant, and judgmental. It is un-American, pro-autocratic regimes and certainly opposes equality of the races or sexes. It is no different than fundamental Islam or fundamental Judaism. When you are right and everyone else is wrong, violence is an acceptable means to accomplish your end of everyone believing exactly like you or else. The tragedy in Norway is another wakeup call for all who oppose fundamentalism in any form to rise up and lend their voices to a campaign to address it wherever it rears its head including the media and politics in this country.
Do I think Anders Behring Breivik is a Christian? What do you think?
Friday, August 5, 2011
THE DEBT CEILING PRAYER (with all due homage to Mark Twain)
It was reported a number of regressive Republican members of the House of Representatives retreated to the quiet confines of the House chapel to ask for divine guidance on how to vote on the upcoming debt-ceiling issue. A "highly" placed source has shed some golden light on the content of their prayer.
Heavenly Father we humbly gather here to ask You to give us the wisdom and courage to make the right decision on raising the debt ceiling. Oh great God, steel us and give us a way to preserve the wealth and power of our "job creator" supporters. Help us to beat back the Obama-led hordes jealously trying to undo Your will.
Eternal Triune God, we know those who have been blessed with success and power enjoy your approval. The most successful have taken advantage of all You have given them. They do Your will every day when they collateralize debt, monetize opportunities and securitize negotiable bonds. Their continued wealth is proof of how much You love them and how much You love and care for the United States of America. Now, however, there are dark and sinister forces trying to destroy Your kingdom. They do the "evil one's" bidding as they press for socialistic taxation and communistic equitable distribution of wealth and they spread the heresy of a rising tide which can lift all boats.
Blessed Lord, show us the way to defeat those who reward the weak and lazy, slow and plodding, those who have not been in your favor, and instead find themselves at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder because they refuse to acknowledge Your preference for a free, unregulated economy. Oh Great Protector, show us how to live up to your Son's command to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Help us to maintain the world in which Jesus admitted the poor will always be with us and help us oppose the devil's henchmen who hide behind programs to educate everyone, aid the poor, clothe the naked and feed the hungry knowing full well those are the very people You do not love and care for or they would be like us.
We face difficult decisions in the House where our opponents are led by a female Papist, and who want to tear down all you have accomplished in gated communities throughout this great land.
Oh Comforter, to Thee we cry...we know you agree Social Security, Medicare and all these other "social programs" are intended to thwart Your will and the natural order You have established on earth. We know you will reward us for protecting those who made this country great by following Your will against those who want to tear it down by advocating for the great unwashed. Please give us the grace to cut spending and end give-aways. Help us to vanquish all who would take from your favorites to help those who refuse to help themselves. We know Your Son would never be in favor of their efforts. Remember the rich young man who refused to sell all he had and follow Your Son? We are sure he went on to own more crops and property and have more slaves and workers for his vineyards just as You would want. Help us to make as courageous a decision as he did.
Thank You, gracious God, for listening to our prayer and guiding us to keep America the greatest, most blessed nation on earth for those who have the wealth to enjoy its bounty.
We ask this through Your Son Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, One God forever and ever.... AMEN
Heavenly Father we humbly gather here to ask You to give us the wisdom and courage to make the right decision on raising the debt ceiling. Oh great God, steel us and give us a way to preserve the wealth and power of our "job creator" supporters. Help us to beat back the Obama-led hordes jealously trying to undo Your will.
Eternal Triune God, we know those who have been blessed with success and power enjoy your approval. The most successful have taken advantage of all You have given them. They do Your will every day when they collateralize debt, monetize opportunities and securitize negotiable bonds. Their continued wealth is proof of how much You love them and how much You love and care for the United States of America. Now, however, there are dark and sinister forces trying to destroy Your kingdom. They do the "evil one's" bidding as they press for socialistic taxation and communistic equitable distribution of wealth and they spread the heresy of a rising tide which can lift all boats.
Blessed Lord, show us the way to defeat those who reward the weak and lazy, slow and plodding, those who have not been in your favor, and instead find themselves at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder because they refuse to acknowledge Your preference for a free, unregulated economy. Oh Great Protector, show us how to live up to your Son's command to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Help us to maintain the world in which Jesus admitted the poor will always be with us and help us oppose the devil's henchmen who hide behind programs to educate everyone, aid the poor, clothe the naked and feed the hungry knowing full well those are the very people You do not love and care for or they would be like us.
We face difficult decisions in the House where our opponents are led by a female Papist, and who want to tear down all you have accomplished in gated communities throughout this great land.
Oh Comforter, to Thee we cry...we know you agree Social Security, Medicare and all these other "social programs" are intended to thwart Your will and the natural order You have established on earth. We know you will reward us for protecting those who made this country great by following Your will against those who want to tear it down by advocating for the great unwashed. Please give us the grace to cut spending and end give-aways. Help us to vanquish all who would take from your favorites to help those who refuse to help themselves. We know Your Son would never be in favor of their efforts. Remember the rich young man who refused to sell all he had and follow Your Son? We are sure he went on to own more crops and property and have more slaves and workers for his vineyards just as You would want. Help us to make as courageous a decision as he did.
Thank You, gracious God, for listening to our prayer and guiding us to keep America the greatest, most blessed nation on earth for those who have the wealth to enjoy its bounty.
We ask this through Your Son Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, One God forever and ever.... AMEN
ETCH A SKETCH...
"...More than anyone, Mr. Cantor drew the House Republicans bright red line in the negotiations, which was that the final deal couldn't raise any taxes. Significantly, that line held in the end." (Gerald Seib...WSJ)
Is it possible in the debt ceiling "compromise" a similar observation could be made about President Obama's performance in the last months of the debate? Can you think of any bright red lines he established and held? A commentator on CNN said he would love too buy a car from Obama. "...He would demand $50,000, and I would offer $10,000 and he would say fine it's yours."
I listened to John Rothmann defending the President after the deal was closed. Obama was being hammered by callers with many saying they feel betrayed and will not consider voting for Obama again. John's defense was the Republicans are worse and Obama is better than one of " them" getting into the White House. If ever there was a definition of damning with feint praise. The bar has been lowered so far in relation to Obama, we are left with, "...well at least he's not as bad as they are." Now that is a campaign them to be proud of.
Of course, John is right. If a regressive, and all the GOP candidates are radically regressive, were to occupy the White House, whatever is left of the social safety net would dissolve. Obama has made two good appointments to the Supreme Court. He has ended "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and his justice department will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits same sex marriage. His appointees to the National Labor Relations Board have returned some balance to an entity that formerly rubber-stamped anything employers wanted to the detriment of working Americans. His health care reforms and financial services reforms could turn out to be landmark pieces of legislation, but they are in danger because of Obama's seeming aversion to fight for anything even as his opponents try to kill both measures through death by a thousand cuts. Recently, the big automakers agreed to fuel economy standards of over 54 miles per gallon by 2025. The EPA is about to issue new pollution rules aimed at dealing with climate change chemicals. There are more examples, but none of this would have occurred with a regressive in the White House.
It is just so painful to watch Obama in action. The pattern is so easy to see now. The other side stakes out extreme positions and Obama gives away much of the fight before it even starts, enabling the other side to control the terms of the debate. Once he abandoned the single payer concept for health care, the reform debate was doomed to niggling around the edges of any real reform and the health insurance companies were saved. In the debt ceiling debate, Obama did draw some lines in the sand. He said he would not accept a deal which did not raise new revenues and wouldn't accept a short-term solution. Once again, his lines in the sand are brushed away by one wave. In this "compromise" Obama gave much and got very little in return. The jury is still out on whether independent voters will reward him for being the only adult in the room come November 2012. It may not make any difference if his actions have so alienated his base they stay home like they did in 2010.
The corporate media says the extremes on either side of the political spectrum are upset with the deal. They have to portray the outcome this way to obfuscate the truth. Those of us who call ourselves progressive are not extreme and yet the deal abandons most progressive principles. In order to get our fiscal house in order, I am willing to accept a change in eligibility rates for Medicare and Social Security. The income cap on Social Security should be removed with the wealthy continuing to pay a percentage of their income into the system no matter how much they make. Requiring anyone who has health insurance to use it first before Medicare kicks in would be an idea worth looking at. Lowering corporate income taxes while raising personal income tax rates is also a viable idea. None of these are extreme positions. They are quite in the middle. However, because Obama refuses to control the debate...because Obama refuses to draw more extreme lines in the sand...because Obama seems incapable of fighting for hat he believes in, or more importantly what we elected him to believe in, these positions are labeled extreme by the very same people who voted for the Ryan budget which would have ended Medicare, made the Bush tax cuts for the uber-rich permanent, and would have shredded what was left of the social safety net. Talk about extreme.
How sad and dispiriting is the argument you must vote to re-elect the President because at least he isn't as bad as "they "are. One of the most glorious moments in 2008 must have been going into a polling booth and voting "for" someone rather than holding your nose and voting for the lesser of two evils. How often down that happen anymore in our elections? In 2012, you cannot afford to stay home or make a protest vote. You saw what happened in 2000. Does anyone believe President Gore would have left the nation in the shambles the way President Bush did?
There are still battles to fight. The President has been seduced into fighting for more trade deals with South Korea and Columbia, which will cost more Americans their jobs. This special congressional commission charged with finding another $1.2 Trillion in spending cuts will not increase taxes so cuts will fall on the middle class again unless you oppose it. (They don't want this commission to work because if it fails, "automatic" cuts occur while preserving the lowest personal income tax rates since 1950) AT&T cannot be allowed to merge with T-Mobile. It would destroy competition and drive cellular phone rates to the roof.
I don't get to vote. However, if I could I would vote to re-elect the President because the alternative would be a disaster. (Just say President Bachman or Romney out loud a few times). I am just sad President Obama has ended up resembling Bill Clinton and not Franklin Roosevelt.
Is it possible in the debt ceiling "compromise" a similar observation could be made about President Obama's performance in the last months of the debate? Can you think of any bright red lines he established and held? A commentator on CNN said he would love too buy a car from Obama. "...He would demand $50,000, and I would offer $10,000 and he would say fine it's yours."
I listened to John Rothmann defending the President after the deal was closed. Obama was being hammered by callers with many saying they feel betrayed and will not consider voting for Obama again. John's defense was the Republicans are worse and Obama is better than one of " them" getting into the White House. If ever there was a definition of damning with feint praise. The bar has been lowered so far in relation to Obama, we are left with, "...well at least he's not as bad as they are." Now that is a campaign them to be proud of.
Of course, John is right. If a regressive, and all the GOP candidates are radically regressive, were to occupy the White House, whatever is left of the social safety net would dissolve. Obama has made two good appointments to the Supreme Court. He has ended "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and his justice department will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits same sex marriage. His appointees to the National Labor Relations Board have returned some balance to an entity that formerly rubber-stamped anything employers wanted to the detriment of working Americans. His health care reforms and financial services reforms could turn out to be landmark pieces of legislation, but they are in danger because of Obama's seeming aversion to fight for anything even as his opponents try to kill both measures through death by a thousand cuts. Recently, the big automakers agreed to fuel economy standards of over 54 miles per gallon by 2025. The EPA is about to issue new pollution rules aimed at dealing with climate change chemicals. There are more examples, but none of this would have occurred with a regressive in the White House.
It is just so painful to watch Obama in action. The pattern is so easy to see now. The other side stakes out extreme positions and Obama gives away much of the fight before it even starts, enabling the other side to control the terms of the debate. Once he abandoned the single payer concept for health care, the reform debate was doomed to niggling around the edges of any real reform and the health insurance companies were saved. In the debt ceiling debate, Obama did draw some lines in the sand. He said he would not accept a deal which did not raise new revenues and wouldn't accept a short-term solution. Once again, his lines in the sand are brushed away by one wave. In this "compromise" Obama gave much and got very little in return. The jury is still out on whether independent voters will reward him for being the only adult in the room come November 2012. It may not make any difference if his actions have so alienated his base they stay home like they did in 2010.
The corporate media says the extremes on either side of the political spectrum are upset with the deal. They have to portray the outcome this way to obfuscate the truth. Those of us who call ourselves progressive are not extreme and yet the deal abandons most progressive principles. In order to get our fiscal house in order, I am willing to accept a change in eligibility rates for Medicare and Social Security. The income cap on Social Security should be removed with the wealthy continuing to pay a percentage of their income into the system no matter how much they make. Requiring anyone who has health insurance to use it first before Medicare kicks in would be an idea worth looking at. Lowering corporate income taxes while raising personal income tax rates is also a viable idea. None of these are extreme positions. They are quite in the middle. However, because Obama refuses to control the debate...because Obama refuses to draw more extreme lines in the sand...because Obama seems incapable of fighting for hat he believes in, or more importantly what we elected him to believe in, these positions are labeled extreme by the very same people who voted for the Ryan budget which would have ended Medicare, made the Bush tax cuts for the uber-rich permanent, and would have shredded what was left of the social safety net. Talk about extreme.
How sad and dispiriting is the argument you must vote to re-elect the President because at least he isn't as bad as "they "are. One of the most glorious moments in 2008 must have been going into a polling booth and voting "for" someone rather than holding your nose and voting for the lesser of two evils. How often down that happen anymore in our elections? In 2012, you cannot afford to stay home or make a protest vote. You saw what happened in 2000. Does anyone believe President Gore would have left the nation in the shambles the way President Bush did?
There are still battles to fight. The President has been seduced into fighting for more trade deals with South Korea and Columbia, which will cost more Americans their jobs. This special congressional commission charged with finding another $1.2 Trillion in spending cuts will not increase taxes so cuts will fall on the middle class again unless you oppose it. (They don't want this commission to work because if it fails, "automatic" cuts occur while preserving the lowest personal income tax rates since 1950) AT&T cannot be allowed to merge with T-Mobile. It would destroy competition and drive cellular phone rates to the roof.
I don't get to vote. However, if I could I would vote to re-elect the President because the alternative would be a disaster. (Just say President Bachman or Romney out loud a few times). I am just sad President Obama has ended up resembling Bill Clinton and not Franklin Roosevelt.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO...
Of the 535 members of Congress, we know there are one Muslim and a number of Jews. The vast majority call themselves Christians and there is not a single atheist in the bunch. At least there is no one who will admit to it. Many of the most regressive members, Bachman...DeMint...Ryan...Boehner...Shelby...wear their religion on their sleeves and claim it helps to inform and direct them when they are faced with moral decisions. It is their religious beliefs, which lead them to oppose abortion and most forms of contraception. Their reading of the Bible leads them to want to break down the wall, which separates church and state. I take them at their word and thus I can see a solution to the current budget deficit/debt ceiling impasse...Matthew 25:31-46.
It's the end time and all the nations have been gathered before God. They are separated with one side getting paradise and the other eternal damnation. The criteria are quite simple. "I was naked and you gave me clothing, hungry and you gave me something to eat, thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me, sick and you healed me, in prison and you visited me. Whenever you did this for the least of your brothers and sisters, you did it for me." If you helped the least of society you were in. If not, God called you accursed and rejected you. Since so many members of Congress claim to follow Jesus, read the Bible and live by its precepts, how does this help solve the latest boondoggle?
Congress and the President have to accomplish a number of tasks. They have to raise the debt ceiling to maintain full faith and credit in our treasury notes. They have to set budget priorities to bring our fiscal house into order. They have to create jobs and grow the economy. They have to promote the general welfare.
It's why I'm baffled by the Christian regressives. If they have their way, the social safety net of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid go away. (I'm not being histrionic they have said its their goal). They would end Head Start and food stamps as they now exist. They want to eliminate the earned income tax credit for the working poor and job training for workers whose jobs were taken overseas. They oppose expanding Pell grants for poor students. At the same time, they refuse to raise taxes on the rich even though tax rates haven't been this low since 1950. They want to cut taxes for corporations, many of who pay no taxes now. They continue to support an ever-increasing budget for the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security and the DEA. I'm confused. Matthew 25 says the key to salvation is providing for the least of our brothers and sisters. Do you sense some kind of disconnect? Could it be these are cultural Christians, people who claim to believe to fit in, rather than people of faith? How would rich or privileged atheists differ with their "Christian" members of Congress on these matters?
What would a fiscal plan look like if it were proposed by the sheep rather than the goats? It would raise the debt ceiling in order to keep our word and pay our debts. It would look forward and return tax rates back to their level in 1992. The Pentagon would see a smaller budget even as the Veterans Administration budget would have to grow to handle all those hurt and damaged over the last 10 years. Social Security would increase its eligibility age to 68 over 10-15 years. There would be no income limit on how much you have to contribute. Medicare would also increase its eligibility age and costs brought under control through comprehensive health care reform. Health care reform would reduce the demand for Medicaid. Between Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Pentagon and along with interest on the national debt, you have covered 3/4 of the entire budget. As for the rest, it's simple. Programs which help the least of our brothers and sisters get funded. Educational opportunities are expanded. Vocational training expanded. Basic research, the key to innovation and jobs, is funded. Budgets for the EPA would increase. (How could improving our health and environment be un-Christian?) Anything, which ignores or abandons the stranger, the naked, the hungry or those in prison, is anathema. Imagine the impact these Christians and their gospel could have in the immigration debate and the issues of surrounding the poor and strangers pouring into this nation.
No one has to be a Christian. There is no religious litmus test to be a member of Congress is there? (Ok, ok my tongue is firmly inserted into my cheek.) How can you claim to follow the little Jewish carpenter and yet ignore one of the key tenets of salvation? Imagine if our budget debates and our discussion of national priorities started with the criteria laid out in Matthew 25. Imagine our country with health care and education and jobs and food available to all. Imagine national policy based on what is best for the least of our citizens rather than a policy designed to help the haves have more.
Of course such policies would be condemned as socialism or communism or some ism and the condemnations would come on Sundays from pulpits and congregations all across the land...and when it's time for reckoning they will say, "When did we see you naked or hungry? When did we see you thirsty or sick, a stranger or in prison? (If we had seen you we would have helped!) Whatever you didn't do for the least of your brothers and sisters you didn't do for ME."
Should we be a nation of sheep or goats?
It's the end time and all the nations have been gathered before God. They are separated with one side getting paradise and the other eternal damnation. The criteria are quite simple. "I was naked and you gave me clothing, hungry and you gave me something to eat, thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me, sick and you healed me, in prison and you visited me. Whenever you did this for the least of your brothers and sisters, you did it for me." If you helped the least of society you were in. If not, God called you accursed and rejected you. Since so many members of Congress claim to follow Jesus, read the Bible and live by its precepts, how does this help solve the latest boondoggle?
Congress and the President have to accomplish a number of tasks. They have to raise the debt ceiling to maintain full faith and credit in our treasury notes. They have to set budget priorities to bring our fiscal house into order. They have to create jobs and grow the economy. They have to promote the general welfare.
It's why I'm baffled by the Christian regressives. If they have their way, the social safety net of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid go away. (I'm not being histrionic they have said its their goal). They would end Head Start and food stamps as they now exist. They want to eliminate the earned income tax credit for the working poor and job training for workers whose jobs were taken overseas. They oppose expanding Pell grants for poor students. At the same time, they refuse to raise taxes on the rich even though tax rates haven't been this low since 1950. They want to cut taxes for corporations, many of who pay no taxes now. They continue to support an ever-increasing budget for the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security and the DEA. I'm confused. Matthew 25 says the key to salvation is providing for the least of our brothers and sisters. Do you sense some kind of disconnect? Could it be these are cultural Christians, people who claim to believe to fit in, rather than people of faith? How would rich or privileged atheists differ with their "Christian" members of Congress on these matters?
What would a fiscal plan look like if it were proposed by the sheep rather than the goats? It would raise the debt ceiling in order to keep our word and pay our debts. It would look forward and return tax rates back to their level in 1992. The Pentagon would see a smaller budget even as the Veterans Administration budget would have to grow to handle all those hurt and damaged over the last 10 years. Social Security would increase its eligibility age to 68 over 10-15 years. There would be no income limit on how much you have to contribute. Medicare would also increase its eligibility age and costs brought under control through comprehensive health care reform. Health care reform would reduce the demand for Medicaid. Between Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Pentagon and along with interest on the national debt, you have covered 3/4 of the entire budget. As for the rest, it's simple. Programs which help the least of our brothers and sisters get funded. Educational opportunities are expanded. Vocational training expanded. Basic research, the key to innovation and jobs, is funded. Budgets for the EPA would increase. (How could improving our health and environment be un-Christian?) Anything, which ignores or abandons the stranger, the naked, the hungry or those in prison, is anathema. Imagine the impact these Christians and their gospel could have in the immigration debate and the issues of surrounding the poor and strangers pouring into this nation.
No one has to be a Christian. There is no religious litmus test to be a member of Congress is there? (Ok, ok my tongue is firmly inserted into my cheek.) How can you claim to follow the little Jewish carpenter and yet ignore one of the key tenets of salvation? Imagine if our budget debates and our discussion of national priorities started with the criteria laid out in Matthew 25. Imagine our country with health care and education and jobs and food available to all. Imagine national policy based on what is best for the least of our citizens rather than a policy designed to help the haves have more.
Of course such policies would be condemned as socialism or communism or some ism and the condemnations would come on Sundays from pulpits and congregations all across the land...and when it's time for reckoning they will say, "When did we see you naked or hungry? When did we see you thirsty or sick, a stranger or in prison? (If we had seen you we would have helped!) Whatever you didn't do for the least of your brothers and sisters you didn't do for ME."
Should we be a nation of sheep or goats?
Monday, July 25, 2011
TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT...
The current scandal involving Rupert Murdoch, his media empire, the British police, and the political establishment raises troubling questions about the nature of a free press and its role in maintaining a healthy democracy. It would be a mistake, however, to conclude this is a uniquely British problem and even more dangerous not to acknowledge the very same concerns about the press in this country.
I.F. Stone once said he didn't want to eat, drink or socialize with the people he wrote about in Washington. He didn't want to be friends with the politicians he hectored. He felt distance, and some alienation, assured his ability to be objective and call a spade a spade no matter whose ox he gored. Every year my stomach turns as stories and video emerges of the White House Correspondent's Dinner. While there doesn't have to be open warfare between the press and the powerful, there should at least be healthy suspicion and skepticism and the dinner is an example of the line between the two sides not blurring, but ceasing to exist.
This is not going to be a tirade about Murdoch and Fox and his genius in founding a news network based in ideology rather than journalism. Murdoch simply took to its logical conclusion, what had already happened to the corporate media in America. When General Electric bought NBC; Cap Cities bought ABC; Lowes Corporation bought CBS; all three demanded their news departments turn a profit. They cut back on anything, which didn't draw viewers. That moment was the beginning of the end of a vibrant, skeptical, press capable of acting as a watchdog on the rich and powerful. Making a profit equals a race for ratings. Ratings means getting people to sit and watch. Attracting viewers means covering stories, which grab their interest. It wasn't too long before the tabloidization of the news was off and running and this was long before Murdoch. White House reporters became millionaires. Networks shied away from controversy and any story which might alienates viewers. Investigative reports dwindled, unless they were about Lindsey Lohan, and foreign bureaus disappeared. Proof of how we have slipped is contained in the recent coverage of the Casey Anthony story. Can anyone explain the reason this story dominated network and cable news for weeks and months? We all know the answer. She was a cute, white woman and the victim was a child and the cast of characters was right out of central casting. The story was salacious and titillating. It was a slam-dunk.
As corporations bought up the news networks, President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 deregulating the electronic media and removing caps on how many radio and television stations corporations could own in any market. This allowed for even further concentration of media in fewer and fewer hands. Ironically, the Hanbaugh's of the world owe their existence to Clinton and de-regulation and to the elimination of their competition. They aren't where they are today because they defeated the competition, but because there was no one left to compete against. KGO is the proof of the pudding. Not once did any of these leading lights ever get better ratings than the locally produced content carried on this station.
Look across the nation today. Look in California today. What television station news department has a bureau in Sacramento? Does anyone have beat reporters anymore? Reporters who covered the cops and city hall? Reporters who knew where bodies were buried and what questions to ask? The only time these venues are covered today is when some print source raises a question or scandal and we all know the trouble print journalism is encountering. Can you think about a future in which only the electronic media were left to keep watch?
Murdoch is a cynical, amoral, despot who ruled in Britain through a combination of fear and intimidation. Even as the phone hacking scandal emerged, Newsweek is now reporting most of the media in Britain either ignored or played down the story. The police refused to take it seriously and maybe even covered it up and politicians turned a blind eye all because they were afraid of what Murdoch would do to them should they rock the boat. Murdoch was about to purchase all of B Sky B network and obtain a virtual monopoly on cable and satellite media. (Anyone seen any stories lately on what would happen if AT&T is allowed to buy T Mobile?) If it had not been for the Guardian newspaper, he would have gotten away with it all. Don't feel smug. It's happening here too.
We now know the entire corporate media was cowed by the Bush administration after September 11, 2001. They were terrified of criticizing or raising questions about Bush et. al. because they didn't want to be accused of being soft on terrorism or unpatriotic. The big media corporations were hoping the FCC under Bush would further deregulate and allow them to increase their holdings and antagonizing Bush could put all of that into jeopardy. Dan Rather has been quoted as admitting no one wanted to ask a tough question. We now know the Washington Post and New York Times were burying stories critical of the war on terror and which raised questions about the justifications for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Judith Miller, in a cozy relationship with Scooter Libby, was writing false stories and repeating Bush propaganda on the front pages of the Times. Stories raising questions about Bush administration assertions were buried on page 18 of the Post if they were published at all. The networks fell into lockstep. Does anyone remember the media love fest after Colin Powell spoke at the U.N.? Despite lying over and over again, no one in the media challenged him or the case he made. Actually, that is not entirely true. In the alternative press, Mother Jones...the Nation...the Progressive...Washington Monthly and others, questions were raised but ignored by the corporate media. Hell, Walter Isakson, then the head of CNN, ran up to capital hill to apologize to Republicans for CNN's coverage of politics and promised to do better. Really?
All Murdoch has done is be more ruthless and unethical. In his world, journalistic standards do not exist. In the rest of the world they are slowly being diluted. For him the end justifies the means. There is no journalism practiced at Fox. It is 24 hours a day of propaganda with the theme set each day by Roger Ailes. However, the rest are not much better. They are all competing for viewers or readers and this drives the discourse to the lowest possible denominator. The political debate always starts from the center and regresses. They are constantly looking for the next O.J. and Casey Anthony story. Do you think Nancy Grace cares about journalism? We now know the networks are paying for stories and interviews exactly the same way as the tabloids. Checkbook journalism is alive and well. Murdoch does it better perhaps, and with relish, but the rest aren't far behind.
The reason freedom of the press was enshrined in the first amendment was the founder's understanding democracy cannot function without a rigorous and independent press. They would be shocked to see the neutered eunuchs who pass for journalists these days. The one hope continues to be the alternative press. Search it out. Read it. Get informed. Subscribe and donate to keep them alive.
Do you want to know about Anthony Weiner, or about the billions being spent to defeat Dodd/Frank and the attempts to prevent financial services reform from being enacted? It is up to you. You get what you pay for and demand.
I.F. Stone once said he didn't want to eat, drink or socialize with the people he wrote about in Washington. He didn't want to be friends with the politicians he hectored. He felt distance, and some alienation, assured his ability to be objective and call a spade a spade no matter whose ox he gored. Every year my stomach turns as stories and video emerges of the White House Correspondent's Dinner. While there doesn't have to be open warfare between the press and the powerful, there should at least be healthy suspicion and skepticism and the dinner is an example of the line between the two sides not blurring, but ceasing to exist.
This is not going to be a tirade about Murdoch and Fox and his genius in founding a news network based in ideology rather than journalism. Murdoch simply took to its logical conclusion, what had already happened to the corporate media in America. When General Electric bought NBC; Cap Cities bought ABC; Lowes Corporation bought CBS; all three demanded their news departments turn a profit. They cut back on anything, which didn't draw viewers. That moment was the beginning of the end of a vibrant, skeptical, press capable of acting as a watchdog on the rich and powerful. Making a profit equals a race for ratings. Ratings means getting people to sit and watch. Attracting viewers means covering stories, which grab their interest. It wasn't too long before the tabloidization of the news was off and running and this was long before Murdoch. White House reporters became millionaires. Networks shied away from controversy and any story which might alienates viewers. Investigative reports dwindled, unless they were about Lindsey Lohan, and foreign bureaus disappeared. Proof of how we have slipped is contained in the recent coverage of the Casey Anthony story. Can anyone explain the reason this story dominated network and cable news for weeks and months? We all know the answer. She was a cute, white woman and the victim was a child and the cast of characters was right out of central casting. The story was salacious and titillating. It was a slam-dunk.
As corporations bought up the news networks, President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 deregulating the electronic media and removing caps on how many radio and television stations corporations could own in any market. This allowed for even further concentration of media in fewer and fewer hands. Ironically, the Hanbaugh's of the world owe their existence to Clinton and de-regulation and to the elimination of their competition. They aren't where they are today because they defeated the competition, but because there was no one left to compete against. KGO is the proof of the pudding. Not once did any of these leading lights ever get better ratings than the locally produced content carried on this station.
Look across the nation today. Look in California today. What television station news department has a bureau in Sacramento? Does anyone have beat reporters anymore? Reporters who covered the cops and city hall? Reporters who knew where bodies were buried and what questions to ask? The only time these venues are covered today is when some print source raises a question or scandal and we all know the trouble print journalism is encountering. Can you think about a future in which only the electronic media were left to keep watch?
Murdoch is a cynical, amoral, despot who ruled in Britain through a combination of fear and intimidation. Even as the phone hacking scandal emerged, Newsweek is now reporting most of the media in Britain either ignored or played down the story. The police refused to take it seriously and maybe even covered it up and politicians turned a blind eye all because they were afraid of what Murdoch would do to them should they rock the boat. Murdoch was about to purchase all of B Sky B network and obtain a virtual monopoly on cable and satellite media. (Anyone seen any stories lately on what would happen if AT&T is allowed to buy T Mobile?) If it had not been for the Guardian newspaper, he would have gotten away with it all. Don't feel smug. It's happening here too.
We now know the entire corporate media was cowed by the Bush administration after September 11, 2001. They were terrified of criticizing or raising questions about Bush et. al. because they didn't want to be accused of being soft on terrorism or unpatriotic. The big media corporations were hoping the FCC under Bush would further deregulate and allow them to increase their holdings and antagonizing Bush could put all of that into jeopardy. Dan Rather has been quoted as admitting no one wanted to ask a tough question. We now know the Washington Post and New York Times were burying stories critical of the war on terror and which raised questions about the justifications for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Judith Miller, in a cozy relationship with Scooter Libby, was writing false stories and repeating Bush propaganda on the front pages of the Times. Stories raising questions about Bush administration assertions were buried on page 18 of the Post if they were published at all. The networks fell into lockstep. Does anyone remember the media love fest after Colin Powell spoke at the U.N.? Despite lying over and over again, no one in the media challenged him or the case he made. Actually, that is not entirely true. In the alternative press, Mother Jones...the Nation...the Progressive...Washington Monthly and others, questions were raised but ignored by the corporate media. Hell, Walter Isakson, then the head of CNN, ran up to capital hill to apologize to Republicans for CNN's coverage of politics and promised to do better. Really?
All Murdoch has done is be more ruthless and unethical. In his world, journalistic standards do not exist. In the rest of the world they are slowly being diluted. For him the end justifies the means. There is no journalism practiced at Fox. It is 24 hours a day of propaganda with the theme set each day by Roger Ailes. However, the rest are not much better. They are all competing for viewers or readers and this drives the discourse to the lowest possible denominator. The political debate always starts from the center and regresses. They are constantly looking for the next O.J. and Casey Anthony story. Do you think Nancy Grace cares about journalism? We now know the networks are paying for stories and interviews exactly the same way as the tabloids. Checkbook journalism is alive and well. Murdoch does it better perhaps, and with relish, but the rest aren't far behind.
The reason freedom of the press was enshrined in the first amendment was the founder's understanding democracy cannot function without a rigorous and independent press. They would be shocked to see the neutered eunuchs who pass for journalists these days. The one hope continues to be the alternative press. Search it out. Read it. Get informed. Subscribe and donate to keep them alive.
Do you want to know about Anthony Weiner, or about the billions being spent to defeat Dodd/Frank and the attempts to prevent financial services reform from being enacted? It is up to you. You get what you pay for and demand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)