In recent months we heard a lot of pundits wax hysterical about the chaos and mayhem the federal court trial of a former Guantanamo detainee would bring to New York.
The folks at Keep America Safe - Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol, and Debra Burlingame - called the trial "dangerous," " reckless," and "embarrassing".
But in New York the trial proceeded with no disruptions. No street closures. No increased police presence. And, this week, a federal judge sentenced Ahmed Ghailani to life in jail with no chance of parole.
Last week, the Situationist blog had a most illuminating take on Sarah Palin's speech, which was also quite illuminating about the nature of situationism, for those of you still trying to figure out what I've been talking about, on and off, for all this time. It's a relatively short piece, so I'm going to include the whole thing, along with some comments. It starts by setting things up, and explaining the term "naive cynicism", which is a form of defense against situationist awareness:
Sarah Palin a Naive Cynic?
Posted by The Situationist Staff on January 12, 2011
Situationist Contributors Adam Benforado and Jon Hanson have written extensively about a dynamic they call "naive cynicism."
Their work explores how dispositionism maintains its dominance despite the fact that it misses so much of what actually moves us. It argues that the answer lies in a subordinate dynamic and discourse, naive cynicism: the basic subconscious mechanism by which dispositionists discredit and dismiss situationist insights and their proponents. Without it, the dominant person schema - dispositionism - would be far more vulnerable to challenge and change, and the more accurate person schema - situationism - less easily and effectively attacked. Naive cynicism is thus critically important to explaining how and why certain legal policies manage to carry the day.
Naive cynicism often takes the form of a backlash against situationism that involves an affirmation of existing dispositionist notions and an assault on (1) the situationist attributions themselves; (2) the individuals, institutions, and groups from which the situationist attributions appear to emanate; and (3) the individuals whose conduct has been situationalized. If one were to boil down those factors to one simple naive-cynicism-promoting frame for minimizing situationist ideas, it would be something like this: Unreasonable outgroup members are attacking us, our beliefs, and the things we value.
* * *
Is Sarah Palin exhibiting that dynamic? Below the video of her remarks you can read some excerpts from the transcript.
I find that having that checklist of assault targets in hand makes it lot more bearable to watch this video. The selected parts and my comments on the flip.
Of course it was inevitable that Sarah Palin would turn out to be the real victim of Arizona massacre. Not Gabrielle Giffords, the real target, who is still in intensive care. Not any of the dead. Not any of the other wounded. Not any of their friends and family. No, the real victim, inevitably, was Sarah Palin. We knew that all along. That's just how things work in Sarah's world. Nothing is ever her fault. She is always the victim of others' unfair attacks... Even when the official government report says otherwise. This is what makes here a prime practitioner of conservative victimology.
So there was never any doubt that Palin would not just deny any responsibility, but that she would blast those who dared to suggest she had done anything wrong at all (even though she had already admitted as much by scrubbing incriminating evidence). "Don't retreat, reload!" You betcha!
But what we weren't prepared for--though we should have been--was her astonishingly ignorant and offensive attempt to appropriate the term "blood libel"--the medieval Christian myth that Jews kidnapped a Christian child each year and mixed his blood with their matzoh (unleavened bread) for their Passover celebration. The blood libel was a false accusation of Jews which resulted not just in deepening prejudice, but in actual massacres, beginning in the 12th Century. Of course blood libel also played an important part in the greatest massacre of all: It was a key element of Nazi propaganda leading up to the Holocaust. Naturally, finger-pointing Sarah Palin is just the sort of person who would have been an enthusiastic spreader of the blood libel herself back in the day. Here's more detailed information from ReligiousTolerance.org:
In 1144 CE, an unfounded rumor began in eastern England, that Jews had kidnapped a Christian child, tied him to a cross, stabbed his head to simulate Jesus' crown of thorns, killed him, drained his body completely of blood, and mixed the blood into matzos (unleavened bread) at time of Passover. The rumor was started by a former Jew, Theobald, who had become a Christian monk. He said that Jewish representatives gathered each year in Narbonne, France. They decided in which city a Christian child would be sacrificed.
The boy involved in the year 1144 hoax became known as St. William of Norwich. Many people made pilgrimages to his tomb and claimed that miracles had resulted from appeals to St. William. The myth shows a complete lack of understanding of mainline Judaism. Aside from the prohibition of killing innocent persons, the Torah specifically forbids the drinking or eating of any form of blood in any quantity. However, reality never has had much of an impact on blood libel myths. This rumor lasted for many centuries; even today it has not completely disappeared. 1
Pope Innocent IV ordered a study in 1247 CE. His investigators found that the myth was a Christian invention used to justify persecution of the Jews. At least 4 other popes subsequently vindicated the Jews. However, the accusations, trials and executions continued. In 1817, Czar Alexander I of Russia declared that the blood libel was a myth. Even that did not stop the accusations against Jews in that country.
"Holy shrines were erected to honor innocent Christian victims, and well into the twentieth century, churches throughout Europe displayed knives and other instruments that Jews purportedly used for these rituals. Caricatures of hunchbacked Jews with horns and fangs were depicted in works of art and carved into stone decorating bridges. Proclaimed by parish priests to be the gospel truth, each recurrence of the blood libel charge added to its credence, thus prompting yet more accusations. This vicious cycle continued to spiral." 7
Nicholl reports that "there are 150 recorded cases of the charge of ritual murder, and many led to massacres of the Jews of the place." 2
A proposed program to cover counseling sessions for seniors on end-of-life care has risen from the ashes of health care reform and found a new life in Medicare regulations, Jason Hancock of the American Independent reports.
In August, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin started a rumor via her Facebook page that the the Obama administration was backing "death panels" that would vote on whether the elderly and infirm had a right to live. In reality, the goal was to have Medicare reimburse doctors for teaching patients how to set up their own advance directives that reflect their wishes on end-of-life care.
Patients can use their advance directives to stipulate their wishes for treatment in the event that they are too sick to make decisions for themselves. They can also use those directives to demand the most aggressive lifesaving interventions.
Waste not, want not
Though end-of-life counseling was ultimately gutted from the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the legislation will eventually ensure health coverage for 32 million more Americans. However, Joanne Kenen in The American Prospect argues it will do comparatively less to curb the high costs of health care. The architects of the ACA had an opportunity to include serious cost-containment measures like a robust public health insurance option to compete with private insurers, but they declined to do so.
Kenen argues that the government should more aggressively target waste within the health care delivery system, especially Medicare and Medicaid. Unchecked and rising health care costs through Medicare and Medicaid are a significantly greater driver of the deficit than Social Security or discretionary spending:
"The waste is enormous," says Harvard health care economist David Cutler. "You can easily convince yourself that there is 40 to 50 percent to be saved." Squeezing out every single bit of that inefficient or unnecessary care may not be realistic. But it also isn't necessary; eliminating even a small fraction of the current waste each year over the next decade would make a huge difference, he added. Health care would finally start acting like "a normal industry." Productivity would grow, in the one area of the economy where it has not, and with productivity gains, prices could be expected to fall.
The new end-of-life counseling program will help reduce waste in the system, not by pressuring people to forgo treatments they want, but by giving them the tools to refuse treatments they don't want.
Teen births down, but why?
The teen birth rate has dropped again, according to the latest CDC statistics. Births to women under the age of 20 declined by 6% in 2009 compared to 2008. One hypothesis is that the reduction is an unexpected consequence of the recession, an argument we pointed to in last week's edition of the Pulse. John Tomasic of the Colorado Independent is skeptical of the recession hypothesis. He writes:
Emily Bridges, director of public information services at Advocates for Youth, agrees with other observers in pointing out that teens aren't likely to include national economics as a significant factor in pondering whether or not to have unprotected sex. Peer pressure, badly mixed booze, general awkwardness, for example, are much more likely than the jobless recovery to play on the minds of horny high schoolers.
Some states with weak economies actually saw a rise in teen birth rates, Tomasic notes. However, this year's sharp downturn in teen births parallels a drop in fertility for U.S. women of all ages, which seems best explained by economic uncertainty.
It's true that prospective teen moms are less likely to have jobs in the first place, and so a bad job market might be less likely to sway their decisions. However, young women who aren't working are unlikely to have significant resources of their own to draw on, which means that they are heavily dependent upon others for support. If their families and partners are already struggling to make ends meet, then the prospect of another mouth to feed may seem even less appealing than usual.
Abortion is the elephant in the room in this discussion. The CDC numbers only count live births. Logically, fewer live births must be the result of fewer conceptions and/or more terminations. Some skeptics doubt that economic factors have much to do with teens' decisions about contraception. However, it seems plausible that decisions about abortion would be heavily influenced by the economic health of the whole extended family.
Last year's decrease was notably sharp, but teen birth rates have been declining steadily for the last 20 years. The Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based non-profit that specializes in research on reproductive choice and health, suggests that successive generations of teens are simply getting savvier about contraception. Births to mothers between the ages of 15 and 17 are down 48% from 1991 levels, and births to mothers ages 18 to 19 are down 30%.
Stupid drug dealer tricks
Martha Rosenberg of AlterNet describes 15 classic dirty tricks deployed by Big Pharma to push drugs. These include phony grassroots patient groups organized by the drug companies to lobby for approval of dubious remedies. Another favorite money-making strategy is to overcharge Medicare and Medicaid. Pharmaceutical companies have paid nearly $15 billion in wrongdoing settlements related to Medicare and Medicaid chicanery over the last five years.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
I have more than a few Tea Party adherents in my family who, prior to this summer, used to make a habit of sending me every little headline about how cold and snowy it was and how those "facts" proved that global warming was a fallacy being undone with each snowflake drifting down to earth. Oddly enough, they never sent me a single headline this summer about how unbelievably hot it was in the Northeast. I guess while I was bobbing around the bayous Louisiana they were reading the World Meteorological Organization's Press Release No. 904 which came to the following conclusion: "The year 2010 is almost certain to rank in the top 3 warmest years since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850" and its byline: "2010 in the top three warmest years, 2001-2010, warmest 10-year period." Well now, as if by magic, the spate of cold weather and overly abundant snowfall gripping the Northern Hemisphere has set off a new round of debate, doubt and denial as it relates to the changing climate.
Global Warming is not a hot button issue with me and I believe that the related science is still in the process of being validated. That along with the fact that some of the findings have been manipulated for political purposes makes for a situation where the jury is still out with the final verdict still in the process of being formulated. Likewise the same holds true for most of the counterarguments. However, none of the aforementioned takes away from the fact that there are discernable changes in the climate that cannot be denied. There is little reason to doubt that there have been major changes in the climate in the last 50+ years. To deny that is to make an argument contrary to historical fact. At 57 I can remember winters that were much different than they are now, at least around the Northeast where I grew up. One of the great misconceptions surrounding the global warming debate hinges around snowfall and temperatures. There is nothing inconsistent with the general theory of global warming where some regions will grow colder with increased amounts of snow fall while others see their climate grow warmer. It hinges in part on the changes in the ocean current, the jet stream and the Central Asian snow pack. Moreover what the opponents of global warming fail to realize in pointing out the increase in snowfall this year and last is that the debate about climate is about trends, not a snapshot of a series of weather events within a given winter or within several winters. Focusing on short term events instead of long term trends serves to undermine an opponent's counter argument as it fails to account for the larger, longer term picture. It fails because climate is a long-term trend whereas weather is the short term manifestation of climate and to focus on a handful of weather events while ignoring the longer term trends is to invite a flaw into one's analysis. That flaw ultimately leads to misconstrued and faulty conclusions.
Judah Cohen of Atmospheric and Environmental Research has recently published findings that effectively debunk the idea that the increased snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere is inconsistent with the idea that the overall climate is warming. Quoting Dr. Cohen:" The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes... Annual cycles like El Niño/Southern Oscillation, solar variability and global ocean currents cannot account for recent winter cooling. And though it is well documented that the earth's frozen areas are in retreat, evidence of thinning Arctic sea ice does not explain why the world's major cities are having colder winters... As global temperatures have warmed and as Arctic sea ice has melted over the past two and a half decades, more moisture has become available to fall as snow over the continents. So the snow cover across Siberia in the fall has steadily increased. The sun's energy reflects off the bright white snow and escapes back out to space. As a result, the temperature cools. When snow cover is more abundant in Siberia, it creates an unusually large dome of cold air next to the mountains, and this amplifies the standing waves in the atmosphere...That is why the Eastern United States, Northern Europe and East Asia have experienced extraordinarily snowy and cold winters since the turn of this century." A further scientific elaboration on Dr. Cohen's model and an assessment of its accuracy can be found in a National Science Foundation Special Report entitled "Predicting Seasonal Weather, A Special Report."
Yet in contrast to the scientific findings that have been put forth from reputable organizations such as the National Science Foundation and Atmospheric and Environmental Research, a large element of the opposition's argument seems to hinge upon conspiracy theories, an anti-intellectual bias or the preaching's of that ever present claque of political entertainers who make their living on cable television masquerading as political analysts. Needless to say, it's definitely a hot button issue among the Tea Party crowd to deny the climate changes that have taken place. John M. Broder in an article entitled "Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith" detailed the extent to which members of the Tea Party Movement are willing to accept anything but science in their efforts to dispute the scientific data contained in those reports that postulate that the world's climate is changing due to global warming. Quoting Broder: "Skepticism and outright denial of global warming are among the articles of faith of the Tea Party Movement... For some, it is a matter of religious conviction; for others, it is driven by distrust of those they call the elites. And for others still, efforts to address climate change are seen as a conspiracy to impose world government and a sweeping redistribution of wealth." Citing a New York Times / CBS poll conducted in October, Broder showed the degree to which members of the Tea Party Movement differ from the general public on the issue of global warming. Tea Party Movement supporters are considerably more skeptical when it comes to the existence and effects of global warming than the American public generally. The survey found that only 14 percent of Tea Party supporters said that the problem of global warming was here and now versus 49 percent of the public at large. More than half of Tea Party supporters said that "global warming would have no serious effect at any time in the future, while only 15 percent of other Americans share that view" and, "8 percent of Tea Party adherents volunteered that they did not believe global warming exists at all, while only 1 percent of other respondents agreed."
Broder links the sentiments of the Tea Party Movement's opposition to global warming theories with other groups that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. He points out that the fossil fuel industries have spent $500 million dollars since 2009 on lobbying against climate change legislation, that they have funded "lavishly financed institutes to produce anti-global-warming studies" and "waged a concerted campaign to raise doubts about the science of global warming", as well as "paid for Web sites to question the science." At the same time the anti global warming rhetoric has been a staple on the talks shows of America's preeminent political entertainers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and of course, Sarah Palin. Promoting anti-global warming skepticism has been a core tenet of right wing groups like Americans for Prosperity, and the Tea Party cash cow, Freedom Works.
All this begs a number of questions: If there is such a compelling body of scientific knowledge that disproves the theory of global warming, then why not just stick with the science and forgo the political theatrics? Why spend millions of dollars on lobbying and public relations to discredit the theory of global warming by raising doubts when you could just produce objective hard science results that point to the contrary? Surely the advocates of global warming theory were set back last summer when it was found that several scientists in England had fiddled with scientific findings for political reasons. That having happened, wouldn't those who oppose global warming theory been better served by a counterargument based on facts at a time when their opponent's integrity was in question? Or, conversely is their counterargument better served by the image of doubters poking around among snowdrifts with their yardsticks in some unscientific attempt to dispute actual scientific findings? Why do the doubters engage in deflection by saying that the argument surrounding global warming is really Marxist wealth redistribution disguised as science when the scientific reports don't include any mention of politics and policy? Perhaps someone should clue these opponents in to the fact that we live in an age dominated by science and technology and that any disputing of hard science is not likely to come about via conspiracy theories, unsupported skepticism or Biblical quotes that address man's relationship with the natural world within which he exists.
Former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin is one of the most influential Republican figures today. Her "mamma-grizzly" endorsements have won a surprising number of victories, and much of the Republican base holds admiration for her. It is almost natural, then, that many pundits consider her as a front-runner or strong candidate for the 2012 Republican nomination.
Democrats like this. They salivate at the prospect of a Palin candidacy, believing that her unpopularity with non-Republicans will enable any standard-fare Democratic candidate to crush her in a presidential election. This belief is probably true; it would take a remarkable set of circumstances for Ms. Palin to win a general election against Mr. Obama.
But Republicans know just as well as Democrats do that Ms. Palin could not win a general election. That is why they will never nominate former governor Sarah Palin for president, no matter how popular she is amongst the Republican base.
Republicans have not even popped the corks of their celebratory champagne bottles yet and already there is a anti-Tea Party coup in the works the goal of which is to torpedo the presidential aspirations of Sarah Palin before her campaign even gets underway. A damming article from Politico which broke just yesterday revealed a concerted if uncoordinated effort taking shape among Republican leaders to see that Palin does not secure the 2012 Republican nomination for president. Quoting Politico:"Interviews with advisers to the main 2012 presidential contenders and with other veteran Republican operatives make clear they see themselves on a common, if uncoordinated, mission of halting the momentum and credibility Palin gained with conservative activists by plunging so aggressively into this year's midterm campaigns...There is rising expectation among GOP elites that Palin will probably run for president in 2012 and could win the Republican nomination, a prospect many of them regard as a disaster in waiting..."There is a determined, focused establishment effort ... to find a candidate we can coalesce around who can beat Sarah Palin," said one prominent and longtime Washington Republican. "We believe she could get the nomination, but Barack Obama would crush her." Thus it would appear that the trains are already on the track for what will be the first train wreck between the G.O.P. esthablishment and the Tea Party Movement.You can add to this developing drama the existing controversy between Ms. Palin and Tea Party star Joe Miller, the current Alaska Senatorial contender whom Palin backed against Lisa Murkowski only to have Miller short change Palin when it came time to endorse her presidential aspirations. This G.O.P. esthablishment - Tea Party friction has been below the surface since the movement gained traction during the 2009 health care reform debates. Appearing on Fox News with Greta Van Sustern in the summer of 2009, Rush Limbaugh was nothing if not emphatic in his denunciation of the Republican leadership and the veiled contempt that they have for the Tea Party Movement generally and Sarah Palin in particular. Tensions only grew more intense as the Tea Party Movement knocked off several Republican veterans and hand picked contenders during primary season. Thereafter the movement went on to put a number of Republicans not currently running for re-election on notice that they too were in the movement's cross hairs.
In an interview with the National Journal, Senate Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell said: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," Is McConnell's rhetoric aimed at placating the Tea Party or does he actually believe that in the depths of the Great Recession, this is the single most important goal for a victorious Republican Party? What happened to the never-ending Republican cry: "Where are the jobs?" What became of all of the talk of reducing the size of government, of tax policy and talk about how to "grow the economy."? Now on the brink of victory the Republican elites have shown their hand and it consists first and foremost of political priorities aimed at winning the 2012 presidential election and making sure that Sarah Palin isn't around to screw things up. What happened to the G.O.P's big effort to "listen to the American people" this past summer? Thus we see just how important the dire state of the economy is to the elites who fashion Republican political strategy. Have McConnell and his lieutenants already misread the election's outcome, taking it to mean that they have a mandate in spite of the fact that they are polling at lower favorability ratings then the Democrats that are about to be turned out of office? Have they misread a vote of protest for an endorsement of the Republican Party line which it can't possibly be given the G.O.P.s historically low standing among voters? That said, how long would it be before the voters come down with that old sinking feeling of buyer's remorse? Surely if the immediate follow on to the midterm elections is the out break of an intra-party civil war within the G.O.P. what else could a weary and disgruntled electorate feel but buyer's remorse, dismay and disgust. The election's outcome will certainly cause the Democrats to circle the wagons and try to regroup for 2012. But it already seems like the G.O.P. and the Tea Party are in the process of circling the rifles into a circular firing squad and that can't be good at a time like this when the country is desperately in need of solutions to deep seated problems of long standing. The final question from all of this is: Has the Republican Party gotten more than it bargained for in its marriage of convenience with the Tea Party and is it too late to unwind the relationship before it tears the G.O.P. to shreds in an intraparty conflict that could end the Republican Party as we presently know it?
Despite Sarah Palin's constant complaints about media coverage, she's actually been treated remarkably well. Almost anyone else would have been buried long ago over the multiple financial improprieties involved in the $12.5 million Wasilla sports complex and hockey rink. Or the Troopergate investigation, which found that:
"1.Governor Sarah Palin abused her power as Governor in that her conduct violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act, which provides 'The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.'"
But if these are just typical political scandals involving greed, corruption, and personal vindictiveness, there's another should-be scandal in Palin's past that's not criminal per se, but that involves a moral abomination of staggering proportions. And that is her "blessing" by an African "witch-hunter," one of two such connections recently described by Bruce Wilson of Talk2Action.
Kenyan evangelist Thomas Muthee's big claim to fame is having driven a witch out of a village in Kenya--a seemingly bizarre act that's actually part of a very dark, very backward pattern of social practices. Although set in a different part of Africa, there's no reason to doubt that what Muthee's involved in is little different from the picture painted in a weekend book review at Salon, "Spellbound": Inside the witch camps of West Africa, subtitled, "A journalist describes life among the thousands banished from their homes by accusations of black magic". It reads, in part:
[W]itchcraft in Africa is no comical curiosity, as Canadian journalist Karen Palmer eloquently demonstrates in her new book, "Spellbound: Inside West Africa's Witch Camps." Palmer who first learned about the camps from a human rights report, decided to visit one while on a six-month fellowship in Ghana in 2007. The makeshift settlements are populated by accused witches, mostly women, exiled from their home villages.
Essentially, these women are internal refugees, fleeing not ethnic or religious persecution but allegations of supernatural crimes, their guilt substantiated by dreams and the ritual sacrifice of guinea hens. The camps aren't small, either. At Gambaga, the town Palmer moved to when she decided to dedicate a couple of years to the subject, there are more than 3,000 accused witches living in unenviable conditions. The residents aren't prisoners, exactly, but they can't go home. Unless they can convince their former neighbors that they've given up cannibalizing other people's souls in the spirit world or flying through the night in the form of a fireballs (a common practice of Ghanaian witches), they're likely to be beaten or stoned to death if they return....
This is the sort of primitive and barbaric worldvidew that Palin happily embraces. And yet, the media has completely turned a blind eye on it. This is her "faith-based" alternative to the reality-based Enlightenment tradition that America is actually based on. Here's a further description of the society in which "witch-hunter" is such a high-status position:
The recent firing of Juan Williams by NPR for comments made on the Fox News and his affiliation with that network has created an interesting sidebar to this now all too familiar affair. The renewed scrutiny of NPR for its alleged liberal bias has resulted in an interesting byproduct. That byproduct is an increased level of attention now being paid to Fox, its parent the News Corp., and its wealthy conservative CEO, Rupert Murdoch.
The practice of allowing candidates to solicit campaign contributions while appearing on Fox News is a significant departure from what is generally considered television news broadcasting. Mr. Murdoch has abided this practice along with his own well-publicized million dollar contributions to Republican campaign organizations and other efforts to promote positions on the far right. That raises a fundamental question: Is Fox a legitimate news organization or has it morphed into something between a news organ and a political action operation even to the point of being considered a shill? A shill is defined as: "a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty." A political action committee is defined as:"a type of political committee organized to spend money for the election or defeat of a candidate." Mr. Murdoch has a record of promoting conservative ideas no matter what the cost. He has continued to prop up the conservative "The New York Post" in spite of its staggering losses to the tune of between $15 million to $30 million. According to Business Week magazine: "The Post has lost so much money for so long that it would have folded years ago if News Corp. applied the same profit-making rigor to the tabloid as it does to its other businesses." What then is the purpose of the continued support of a newspaper the commentary of which often resembles old-fashioned agitprop? There can only be one logical explanation and it's because the Post represents Mr. Murdoch's primary organ for presenting the conservative line in what is one of the bluest regions in the country and he is willing to spend whatever it takes to do so.
The argument that Fox News has become somewhat of a political operation is more than apparent when one examines the following evidence. Former Ohio Republican Congressman and now candidate for Governor, John Kasich, appearing during prime time on "Hannity" was given time to solicit campaign contributions while on the air saying:" If you have extra nickels or dimes, please send it our way." According to Brian Stelter of the New York Times this is not the first time Kasich has used an appearance on Fox to raise money for his campaign. Quoting Stelter: "The channel was the subject of an election complaint in Ohio because Mr. Kasich was able to ask for money and display his Web site address during an interview in August on "The O'Reilly Factor," Fox's biggest prime time talk show. Mr. Kasich used to host a weekend show on Fox, and Mr. Murdoch has called him a friend." Moreover Stelter points out that Fox employees have engaged in more direct political action both on and off the air: "Sometimes the most outspoken of the Fox hosts go out and raise money directly. Mr. Hannity has headlined several fund-raisers for Republicans this year. And just last week, Mr. Beck donated $10,000 to the U. S. Chamber of Commerce to defend it against criticism from President Obama - and challenged his radio listeners to donate as well." Beyond these various forms of political action is the fact that several likely candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination are presently on the Fox payroll or regularly appear on the network, including Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.
When you look across the political spectrum to Fox's chief rivals: MSNBC, CNN and NPR you see several object lessons in how competing news organizations have different values. Political action at MSNBC, for example, is much more constrained, to the point that there is very little deviation from what could considered legitimate news reporting and commentary. Again quoting Stelter: "All this political activity has spurred at least a little bit of hand-wringing at the channels. NBC News, which operates MSNBC, recently reiterated its rule that employees may not engage in political activity, but said it had carved out an exception for some MSNBC hosts." To date whatever exceptions exist at MSNBC, they are not even remotely close to the on the air solicitation of funds, public activities related to fund raising by network commentators or the employment of prospective presidential candidates on the network's payroll which is presently the case at Fox. At NPR political activity of any variety is virtually nonexistent. In the final analysis what we have witnessed at Fox News is the evolution of a news organization into something beyond what is commonly considered political reporting and commentary into something short of a political action committee, a sort of quasi-political news organ if you will. That said shouldn't the Fox News Network scrub the subtitle of "Fair and Balanced" from its headline banner seeing as it can no longer legitimately make that claim in light of the fundamental transformation that has taken place within the Fox organization?
As November 2nd draws nearer, it seems that the stumbles and fumbles of key Tea Party candidates just keep on coming. This has given rise to ever more questions about the fitness and viability of some of the leading candidates for public office running beneath the Tea Party banner.
Not to lean too heavily on the much maligned Christine O'Donnell, but when a candidate for a seat in the U.S. Senate can't name one recent Supreme Court decision that she disagrees with, one can only roll one's eyes so many times before one has to dismiss this woman's candidacy altogether for the farce that it obviously is. Covering O'Donnell's debate with Chris Coons for Politico, David Catanese made the following observation:"She also failed to name a recent Supreme Court decision she agreed with -- a moment reminiscent of the infamous question that tripped up Sarah Palin during her interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric. O'Donnell paused for a few seconds before telling the questioners she would get back to them and "put it up on my website." Catanese went on to observe that: "Wednesday night's nationally televised Delaware Senate debate showcased Christine O'Donnell's great strength - as a feisty tea party upstart exuding personal charisma, as well as her primary weakness - as a flawed candidate carrying a heap of baggage who at times appeared out of her depths on substantive policy questions." So let me get this straight, Ms. O'Donnell wants to take a moment or two to "research" her favorite Supreme Court decisions and then she will "get back to us". Are we really supposed to take this candidate seriously or is this someone's idea of a spoof? Beyond that Ms. O'Donnell seems to be confused as to who is actually charged with judicial review under our system of checks and balances, saying: "when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional." Funny, but isn't that the job of the Supreme Court?
Next is the apparent waffling or misinterpretation of Rand Paul's position on taxes. Three days ago, Paul stated to The American's for Fair Taxation: "The federal tax code is a disaster no one would come up with if we were starting from scratch. I support making taxes flatter and simpler. I would vote for the Fair Tax to get rid of the 16th Amendment, the IRS and a lot of the control the federal government exerts over us." Yet today, Paul's Campaign Manager, Jesse Benton, hit the airwaves saying said that this representation of the candidates tax views was:" the result of an "overzealous" anti-tax advocate who misstated Paul's position when he quoted the candidate." But according to the Louisville Courier-Journal: "Over the past few days, Paul has distanced himself from the Fair Tax despite mounting evidence that he has, indeed, voiced support for the plan." Okay so what are the voters supposed to believe? Rand Paul was for the Fair Tax before he was against it? If so why the flip-flop? Where does the candidate actually stand on this issue and what are the voters supposed to base their decision on, that he favors a national sales tax of 23%, the so called fair tax, or he does not?
Finally there is New York's Tea Party candidate for governor, Carl Paladino, who veteran conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer called the "most suicidal candidate" in the 2010 election cycle. In an article that appeared in today's Washington Post, "Your pre-election post-mortem" Krauthammer opined: "Carl Paladino is running in a deep-blue state with sky-high taxes, yawning deficits and rampant corruption. The last elected Democratic governor resigned in disgrace, and his successor is so tainted that he dare not run for another term. So, what does Kamikaze Carl proceed to do? Get in an angry shouting match with a reporter. Level some odd insinuation about his opponent's "prowess." Figuring he hasn't veered off-message enough, he then expounds on homosexuality -- and spends three days having to explain and reaffirm, before the inevitable apology. He's down by 19 points." Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, Paladino seems to have done just that with both barrels blazing.
So what is the rank and file Tea Partier to do? If you live in Delaware, Kentucky or New York how can you bring yourself to vote for candidates who either don't understand the process of judicial review, whether or not they actually support a national sales tax or what their actual message is? Isn't the Tea Party supposed to represent an alternative to business as usual? If this is what three of the major contenders under the Tea Party banner represent, in terms of policy and perspective, are we any better off with candidates of this caliber or will they likely guarantee more ineffective government due to their inexperience, lack of depth and inability to articulate what actually is their position on a given issue? These are serious questions that every voter must ask before they can vote for any of the above candidates with any degree of comfort or confidence.
What word would you use to describe a candidate for the U.S. Senate, who just happens to be a Tea Party favorite, that publically advocates repealing health care reform, opposes the regulation of health care insurers while at the same time benefits from health care provided by a federal government agency? If the word hypocrite comes to mind, you just hit the jackpot. Not necessarily intended to be a tongue in cheek quip, but our winner of the hypocrite of the day award goes to Nevada's Sharron Angle, who just happens to hail from the land of slot machines and crap tables.
Yeah, you read me correctly, this morning's "Politico's Morning Score" blew the cover off of Ms. Angle's dirty little secret and possibly a hole in her campaign to be the next U.S. Senator from Nevada. Needless to say, this isn't exactly the kind of publicity that the Tea Party Movement is looking for either. Its one thing for the Tea Party Movement to be lampooned by the political highbrows on MSNBC and the Daily Show who can be dismissed as elitist by the party faithful. It's quite yet another for one of its premier candidates to so seriously stumble just weeks before an election that is supposed to be the movement's coming out party in the big leagues of electoral politics. Politico's Morning Score reports: "Angle's campaign acknowledged to Nevada journalist Jon Ralston Monday that both the candidate and her husband receive health care from the federal government. Spokeswoman Ciara Matthews said in a statement: "Mr. Ted Angle receives his pension through the (federal) Civil Service Retirement System. While it is not supplemented by the federal government, current civil servants pay into the program to pay the schedule of those already retired - much like how the Social Security Program works today." But there's more to it than just the machinations of the Angle family, another prominent mouthpiece of the Tea Party Movement, Michelle Bachmann, a regular critic of government health care is also a beneficiary of the very programs she rails against. According to MediaMatters.com:" Angle isn't the only right-wing Republican to bash government involvement in health care while benefiting from it. Back in May, the Minnesota Independent reported that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a frequent critic of "socialized medicine," was profiting from a government-run health program in Minnesota through her husband's Christian mental health clinic." A Christian clinic?, What became of the values of honesty and truthfulness, or are they to be convienently ignored when politics is what's on the menu?
So there you have it, some of the leading lights of the movement that is supposed to "take back our country" and bring us back to "the values and wisdom of our Founding Fathers", have found it in their best interest to talk you out of the need for health care reform and insurance company oversight while they and their families are more than happy to benefit from programs they publically oppose. These Tea Party elites, who regularly blast the established Washington elites, have seen fit to insulate themselves and their families from life's vicissitudes while admonishing the rest of us to" work hard, be frugal and trust in the markets and what made America great in the past." The hypocrisy in all of this is obvious and undeniable. What is not immediately obvious is to what extent these revelations just weeks before the mid-term elections will give the independent voter cause for concern as it regards supporting candidates like Sharron Angle or re-electing a Michelle Bachmann. I doubt it will do much to dissuade the rank and file Tea Party foot soldier, but it may. That said, what the rank and file intend to do really is of secondary import, it's the independent voter who holds the key to both this election and the next.
Christine O'Donnell, one of the Tea Party's newly minted stars has revealed that she will forgo any further national media coverage so as to" focus on Delaware." Her last-minute cancellation of two Sunday show appearances two days ago garnered her widespread criticism, see the sources below. O'Donnell said her decision was motivated by advice that she received from Sarah Palin, but we can only assume that in addition to that advice, Ms. O'Donnell hopes to get out from under the media scrutiny that has thus far revealed a history of financial missteps, dishonesty and tales from the world of witchcraft. The real question is does she have the conviction of her beliefs or not? Does she think that she can effectively serve in the office of U.S. Senator from Delaware? A further, compelling question is why forgo free national exposure in the big leagues of the political talk show circuit if you truly feel you are up for the task of being a United States Senator? Don't the voters in Delaware watch television? Would not the news of her appearance on shows like Meet the Press cause the voting public to tune in to those debates so as to see what she has to say? As the days pass, the questions surrounding Christine O'Donnell and her fitness to be the a United States Senator only continue to mount and no amount of limiting her exposure to the media will help allay or deflect these very real concerns.
I can understand that Ms. O'Donnell might not relish the "meat grinder" of the political talk show circuit or that of the 24/7 cable network merry-go-round. However, if she can't stand up to challenges related to her ideas and beliefs, all legitimate questions in an election season, then how will she stand up to a crisis of national or even worldwide scope that she might face as a Senator? If confronted with another 9/11, an invasion of South Korea by the North Koreans or an Iranian missile crisis what would she do? Would she step up to the challenge or would she take the path of her newly found political mentor, Ms. Palin, and conjure up some reason to resign put pledge to continue to work for the people of Delaware by traveling around the country on the lecture circuit or on the talk shows that she had previously avoided?
O'Donnell Tells Hannity She Won't Do Anymore 'National Media' Interviewshttp://www.theblaze.com/stories/odonnell-tells-hannity-she-wont-do-anymore-national-media-interviews/
Well now that the last of the "Tea Party" primaries is over, one can only wonder what people on the right were thinking when they voted for Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. Didn't William F. Buckley, the scion of the post World War II conservative movement lecture the faithful on the need to nominate the most electable conservatives? As a matter of fact I know he said that because Charles Krauthammer reiterated Mr. Buckley's dictum just last week in a Washington Post article. Even Karl Rove, a man desperately seeking political redemption, was nothing less than flabbergasted in O'Donnell's election. He went so far as to deride the prospect of her being on the ballot as nothing short of a disaster. Is Rove suggesting that O'Donnell now constitutes, singlehandedly, the most formidable obstacle to the G.O.P's turning over the Senate in November? Rove characterized O'Donnell as unelectable, untruthful and outright "nutty" in his own words.
So let me get this straight, the Tea Party that has been vociferous in advocating for the virtues of the free market, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility, wants us to vote for someone who according a N.Y. Times article: "has struggled for years with personal finance problems - she has reported earnings of only $5,800 between most of this year and last and she has defaulted on her mortgage - and fudged her educational background and past campaign achievement, much of which was dredged up and disseminated by her own party... Yet, she told a reporter for The News Journal of Wilmington last March that her campaign had paid half the rent on her town house there because it doubled as her headquarters, one of several financial oddities enumerated in an article in that paper. Also included was an Internal Revenue Service lien for $11,744 in back taxes and penalties from 2005 which Ms. O'Donnell attributed to an error made by the federal agency and a 2008 mortgage default judgment on her home...Further, while Ms. O'Donnell claimed for several years that she was a graduate of Fairleigh Dickinson University, in fact she attained her bachelor's degree in English literature only this summer. She said that while she participated in the cap-and-gown ceremony nearly two decades ago, she was unable to formally graduate because of unpaid tuition." If I'm not mistaken there's a name for people who graduate after many years of scholarly study at an institution of higher learning, I think they go by the titles: Doctor, Lawyer or PhD.
If these revelations are not enough to send you onto the floor in laughter, then how about the fact that O'Donnell, who tout's herself as a religious person, has actually flirted with the opposite end of the religious spectrum, Witchcraft! But don't take my word for it, there will be no spin here, listen to O'Donnell in her own words: "I dabbled into witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I'm not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do. One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar and I didn't know it. I mean, there was a little blood there and stuff like that... We went to a movie and then had a little picnic on a satanic altar." And all of this just a mere eleven years ago, in what one could reasonably consider a person's politically formative years.
Sarah Palin has more than established her bona fides as a farcical figure with her regular political pratfalls, a lack of knowledge of the issues, bizarre claims about socialism and Marxism, and her outright anti-intellectual demeanor. But with the victory of Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware Primary the Tea party has crossed a new and exciting threshold, going from the farcical to the absolutely absurd. I can't but help to believe that they must have been partying into the wee hours, upon news of O'Donnell's election, in the White House and anywhere in Washington D.C. and beyond as the Democrats may have just dodged the bullet as it relates to losing the Senate. Hey, you can't make this stuff up.
Steve Gulitti
9/21/10
Sources:
1)Rebel Republican Marching On, With Baggage;http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/us/politics/16odonnell.html?emc=eta
When I joined Twitter in July 2006 I was the 3,365th person to sign up for the 140-character message streaming social network. Now, with more than 190 million users having taken the plunge, I guess you could call me an early adopter of sorts.
See, I've always believed that the Internet -- and by extension new online tools like Twitter -- have the ability to create change because it levels the political playing field tearing down walls that have traditionally separated the powerless and the powerful.
It turns out I may have been wrong -- at least when it comes to a certain half-termer from Alaska.
At Saturday's Beck-a-Thon, Sarah Palin turned out to be little more than an afterthought. But that was partially because months of pressure forced Beck to scale back his attempt to steal Martin Luther Kings's vision. Nonetheless, in a round-about way, Palin tried her darnedest to not only claim the mantle of Martin Luther King, but George Washington and Abraham Lincoln as well. And she did it all in the name of honoring our military-a truly bizarre move, given not only that King was the most prominent anti-war activist of his time, but also that one of the things that Washington is most noted for is his key role in restraining the influence of the military and supporting the strength of civilian government. Here, then is how Palin began her speech, followed by a direct bebuke of her ignorant attitiudes and those of Beck himself in a signicant passage of one of King's most important speeches, "Beyond Vietnam".
Thank you so much. Are you not so proud to be an American?
What an honor. What an honor.
We stand today at the symbolic crossroads of our nation's history. All around us are monuments to those who have sustained us in word or deed. There in the distance stands the monument to the father of our country. And behind me, the towering presence of the Great Emancipator who secured our union at the moment of its most perilous time and freed those whose captivity was our greatest shame. And over these grounds where we are so honored to stand today, we feel the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who on this very day, two score and seven years ago, gave voice to a dream that would challenge us to honor the sacred charters of our liberty - that all men are created equal.
Now, in honoring these giants, who were linked by a solid rock foundation of faith in the one true God of justice, we must not forget the ordinary men and women on whose shoulders they stood. The ordinary called for extraordinary bravery. I am speaking, of course, of America's finest - our men and women in uniform, a force for good in this country, and that is nothing to apologize for.
Abraham Lincoln once spoke of the "The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land." For over 200 years, those mystic chords have bound us in gratitude to those who are willingly to sacrifice, to restrain evil, to protect God-given liberty, to sacrifice all in defense of our country.
They fought for its freedom at Bunker Hill, they fought for its survival at Gettysburg, and for the ideals on which it stands - liberty and justice for all - on a thousand battlefields far from home.
It is so humbling to get to be here with you today, patriots - you who are motivated and engaged and concerned, knowing to never retreat. I must assume that you too know that we must not fundamentally transform America as some would want. We must restore America and restore her honor!
While Palin's speech was typically disjointed and devoid of logical argument, it's clear that she wanted to argue that somehow everything could be reduced to America's military--even its foremost opponent of militarism and proponent of nonviolence, Martin Luther King, whose actual philosophy she seems to know absolutely nothing about.. She also wanted--in those last two lines--to take a very slightly veiled poke at President Obama. But inadvertently, she took a roundhouse punch at Martin Luther King, and made an utter fool of herself... one more time.
For King's vision was the exact opposite of hers and of Becks: what America needed most of all, in his view, was a profound transformation of values and institutions to bring its everyday lived reality in line with its highest promise, which has never been realized, either at home or abroad. It was hardly surprising that a descendent of slaves should be aware of this shortcoming as a central historical fact, and in part of his "Beyond Vietnam" speech, King directly quoted the most eloquent expression of this awareness in American literature, Langston Hughes' poem, "Let America be America again.":
STATE BLOGS
