Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Our Media Can't Face the Truth
Sometimes I wonder how journalists can remain so calm when biting their tongues. I’m sure that the pain would be excruciating, especially when you consider how many times the tongue biting occurs during a typical Washington day. Last month must have been a terrible ordeal for the reporters covering the daily Presidential press briefings at the White House. Time and time again, the President or his press secretary stated that Russia invaded Georgia for no apparent reason. What exactly is the protocol when a ridiculous fabrication is told to a large group that understands completely that they are being lied to and millions of people are watching? In the days before Bush, a reporter could actually expose the lie being told, but in these new days of living under the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the enhanced FISA law when one could conceivably have their phones tapped or their computers hacked and also the No Fly List, where does an aspiring journalist stop using their tongue for forming words and instead use it for “speech control” between the teeth?
When the administration reiterates that Iran should not, and will not acquire nuclear weapons, why don’t reporters mention that Israel possesses hundreds of warheads? Is that information supposed to be a “state secret”? When the government proposes that the taxpayer provide between six hundred billion and one trillion dollars to bail out investment banking firms and financial corporations that seem to be on the wrong end of a Ponzi scheme that went bad, why is it that nobody brings up the fact that while bailing out the firms that made the bad loans, the taxpayers that are providing the funds for this bailout, and they are losing their own homes and the government isn’t doing anything to help them? Why don’t the reporters in the briefings ask why, since the taxpayers now are in effect their new employers, don’t the CEO’s and upper management be paid in the same manner as other government employees?
The government isn’t the only entity that walks a thin line when it comes to the truth. Why it is that Senator Obama constantly derides “Washington insiders” even though his running mate has been in the Senate for over thirty years? When Senator McCain uses his imprisonment and torture by his jailers in Hanoi as a symbol of his patriotism, when is the media going to point out the fact that he voted for the torture of enemy combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan? When the government decries the so-called “invasion” of Georgia by Russia as a violation of international law, what then is their justification for incursions into Pakistan by the United States military?
The media has changed from being a stalwart defender of the public’s right to know the truth, into a timid, vacillating entity that for all intents and purposes, censors itself. A few months ago, the ACLU requested documents of meetings between former military officers that served as “military analysts” for the television networks, and briefings that were conducted at the Pentagon. The documents that were requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) revealed that the Pentagon had briefed these “analysts” and actually gave some of them scripts and talking points to use when working for the networks. The documents was handed over to the ACLU late Friday evening. The volume of paper that was presented to the ACLU entailed days of reading, yet when The New York Times discovered that the documents had been given to the group of lawyers, that Sunday, The NYT ran an eight page article about the Pentagon’s involvement in “framing” the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The article appeared the very next day in the Sunday New York Times. How long did the paper know of this deception by the Pentagon? It hardly seems possible that an eight page article was written in less than twenty four hours and without the documents that were supplied to the ACLU. How long had the Times been sitting on the story?
The situation that came out of the investigation of torture at the Abu Graib prison also begs the question of why (besides the Army reservist Major General) only junior enlisted soldiers were charged and tried for the abuses that occurred there. What kind of Army is it when only a few specialists and a buck Sergeant were held responsible for what happened? Where were their Platoon Sergeants and their squad leaders while the abuse happened? What about the company commander, the First Sergeant and the battalion commander? Did the lower ranking enlisted people have free reign over the entire prison? The entire investigation was seriously flawed and an impossible scenario for anyone with an understanding of how the military operates, yet not a question was raised by the media.
I would like to illustrate how the media has been reduced from what it once was, exemplified by reporters like Woodward and Bernstein when they released the Pentagon Papers that illustrated how the government deceived the American people. The news media has morphed into something unrecognizable from what it once was. When Pope John died, the Vatican convened the College of Cardinals to choose a successor. The deliberations took place and the signal that a new Pope had been selected was white smoke coming from the building they were occupying. If the Cardinals had not reached a decision, black smoke would signal no selection. I was sitting in a chair next to the hospital bed occupied by my wife, recovering from a stroke. A few days passed without a decision and the black smoke would rise from the chimney. That afternoon, I remarked to my wife that the smoke was white and that meant they had selected a new Pope. The newscaster, to my surprise, stated that the smoke was black and there was no selection made. I changed the channel to see what was being said. When I looked at the smoke it was white, I thought that maybe I was mistaken, maybe the angle I was looking in may have made the smoke appear to be white. The announcer on a different network confirmed that the smoke was indeed black.
I watched for almost fifteen minutes, flipping through the channels. Even from different vantage points on different channels, to me, the smoke appeared to be white. My wife agreed with me, yet the newscasters all agreed that the smoke was black. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. I saw white, the media saw black. After fifteen minutes, one of the announcers remarked that maybe the smoke wasn’t black after all. I distinctly saw white. I switched to another station and heard this announcer state that maybe the smoke wasn’t black at all; maybe a new Pope had been elected. I switched channels again and heard the newscaster reevaluate his observation. After about three or four minutes, they all agreed that the smoke was indeed white, a new Pope had been selected. I looked at my wife and told her that the news people were afraid to step away from the crowd and change their observation, even though they knew that the smoke was white. It wasn’t until almost twenty minutes later someone had the nerve to discern what was in plain sight, they were that afraid of being wrong, of having a different point of view. I believe that this little scene exemplified the entire media, and that they truly can’t tell black from white.
When the administration reiterates that Iran should not, and will not acquire nuclear weapons, why don’t reporters mention that Israel possesses hundreds of warheads? Is that information supposed to be a “state secret”? When the government proposes that the taxpayer provide between six hundred billion and one trillion dollars to bail out investment banking firms and financial corporations that seem to be on the wrong end of a Ponzi scheme that went bad, why is it that nobody brings up the fact that while bailing out the firms that made the bad loans, the taxpayers that are providing the funds for this bailout, and they are losing their own homes and the government isn’t doing anything to help them? Why don’t the reporters in the briefings ask why, since the taxpayers now are in effect their new employers, don’t the CEO’s and upper management be paid in the same manner as other government employees?
The government isn’t the only entity that walks a thin line when it comes to the truth. Why it is that Senator Obama constantly derides “Washington insiders” even though his running mate has been in the Senate for over thirty years? When Senator McCain uses his imprisonment and torture by his jailers in Hanoi as a symbol of his patriotism, when is the media going to point out the fact that he voted for the torture of enemy combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan? When the government decries the so-called “invasion” of Georgia by Russia as a violation of international law, what then is their justification for incursions into Pakistan by the United States military?
The media has changed from being a stalwart defender of the public’s right to know the truth, into a timid, vacillating entity that for all intents and purposes, censors itself. A few months ago, the ACLU requested documents of meetings between former military officers that served as “military analysts” for the television networks, and briefings that were conducted at the Pentagon. The documents that were requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) revealed that the Pentagon had briefed these “analysts” and actually gave some of them scripts and talking points to use when working for the networks. The documents was handed over to the ACLU late Friday evening. The volume of paper that was presented to the ACLU entailed days of reading, yet when The New York Times discovered that the documents had been given to the group of lawyers, that Sunday, The NYT ran an eight page article about the Pentagon’s involvement in “framing” the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The article appeared the very next day in the Sunday New York Times. How long did the paper know of this deception by the Pentagon? It hardly seems possible that an eight page article was written in less than twenty four hours and without the documents that were supplied to the ACLU. How long had the Times been sitting on the story?
The situation that came out of the investigation of torture at the Abu Graib prison also begs the question of why (besides the Army reservist Major General) only junior enlisted soldiers were charged and tried for the abuses that occurred there. What kind of Army is it when only a few specialists and a buck Sergeant were held responsible for what happened? Where were their Platoon Sergeants and their squad leaders while the abuse happened? What about the company commander, the First Sergeant and the battalion commander? Did the lower ranking enlisted people have free reign over the entire prison? The entire investigation was seriously flawed and an impossible scenario for anyone with an understanding of how the military operates, yet not a question was raised by the media.
I would like to illustrate how the media has been reduced from what it once was, exemplified by reporters like Woodward and Bernstein when they released the Pentagon Papers that illustrated how the government deceived the American people. The news media has morphed into something unrecognizable from what it once was. When Pope John died, the Vatican convened the College of Cardinals to choose a successor. The deliberations took place and the signal that a new Pope had been selected was white smoke coming from the building they were occupying. If the Cardinals had not reached a decision, black smoke would signal no selection. I was sitting in a chair next to the hospital bed occupied by my wife, recovering from a stroke. A few days passed without a decision and the black smoke would rise from the chimney. That afternoon, I remarked to my wife that the smoke was white and that meant they had selected a new Pope. The newscaster, to my surprise, stated that the smoke was black and there was no selection made. I changed the channel to see what was being said. When I looked at the smoke it was white, I thought that maybe I was mistaken, maybe the angle I was looking in may have made the smoke appear to be white. The announcer on a different network confirmed that the smoke was indeed black.
I watched for almost fifteen minutes, flipping through the channels. Even from different vantage points on different channels, to me, the smoke appeared to be white. My wife agreed with me, yet the newscasters all agreed that the smoke was black. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. I saw white, the media saw black. After fifteen minutes, one of the announcers remarked that maybe the smoke wasn’t black after all. I distinctly saw white. I switched to another station and heard this announcer state that maybe the smoke wasn’t black at all; maybe a new Pope had been elected. I switched channels again and heard the newscaster reevaluate his observation. After about three or four minutes, they all agreed that the smoke was indeed white, a new Pope had been selected. I looked at my wife and told her that the news people were afraid to step away from the crowd and change their observation, even though they knew that the smoke was white. It wasn’t until almost twenty minutes later someone had the nerve to discern what was in plain sight, they were that afraid of being wrong, of having a different point of view. I believe that this little scene exemplified the entire media, and that they truly can’t tell black from white.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Obama: Walking a Thin Line
I can’t remember a time when the political landscape has been as bleak and littered by crackpot ideas than it is now. The two representatives of the duopoly that share power in this nation have consistently changed positions and both have endorsed the use of force (including first-strike nuclear attacks) on nations that are opposed to U.S. foreign policy. These positions would have been anathema to a presidential race just a few years ago, but now statements supporting pre-emptive nuclear strikes are talked about with hardly any eyebrows being raised, or indignation expressed.
This presidential race has become a “gotcha” fest of the lowest moral caliber. Instead of portraying themselves as morally worthy of holding the highest office in the land, the two major party candidates have consistently raised the bar of what is considered acceptable to Americans. Time and time again, ideas and policy statements that would have been unthinkable in the 20th century are now commonplace rhetoric on a planet that has seemingly forgotten the horrors of nuclear warfare, and now has become inured to scenes of death and destruction of civilian populations in the name of bringing “democracy and freedom” to the corpses that litter the streets and back alleys of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The American people are asked to accept pandering to the right by both candidates in the name of a “winning strategy” that will enable their candidate to win the election. Time and time again I hear the words “political expediency” when supporters of either candidate brings up the question of the use of force. We are consistently told that in order to win the presidency the candidates cannot seem to be soft on terrorism or soft on defense for that would show them as “spineless” and cost them dearly on Election Day. These types of arguments are given to the so-called liberal/progressives that make up a big part of the alternative media that is called “the blogosphere”. The reality of the situation is that both Obama and McCain both seem to have veered sharply to the right of their previous positions when they weren’t looking to win the White House.
One must wonder why, when some pollsters claim that over 70% of the American people want to withdraw from Iraq, they consistently pander to the 20-30% of Americans that support this war. It would seem that a winning strategy would to embrace the 70% of Americans that want an end to this protracted war that has cost this country almost a trillion dollars and over 4,000 dead American soldiers. That would make better political sense than aligning with the 30% that want to continue the war. Why aren’t both major candidates doing that in the name of political expedience?
One can only surmise the intentions of both Obama and McCain. Saber-rattling and posturing towards attacking Iran would seem to be counter-productive to reaching the 70% of the voters that cast their votes in November. If both candidates don’t care about alienating this 70% than there must be a good reason, the facts behind their behavior are fairly obvious, that is, if one simply follows the money.
Here is a sampling of donor information pulled from The Center for Responsive Government;
“Wall Street seems to have selected Barack Obama for its own major investment this election cycle. Traditionally an industry that gives to Republicans, securities and investment companies have been pouring money into the coffers of both the Illinois senator and former Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, giving nearly $15 million combined to the two, according to Reuters, citing data from CRP.”
“Overall, 57 percent of this industry's contributions to the race (including all candidates who have run) have been to Democratic candidates. Since the start of 2007, Obama has received $7.9 million, with Clinton only about $800,000 behind. Should Obama continue to be this industry's financial favorite, it will become the first time since 1994 that the Democrats will have brought in more Wall Street donations than the Republicans. In the 2004 election cycle, President Bush collected nearly twice that of Democrat John Kerry from the securities and investment industry--$9.2 million compared to $4.8 million. This cycle, Republican candidate John McCain, who would likely be less tough on trade and regulation than Obama, still falls short with a mere $4.1 million.”
Could the practice of wooing the 30% of the population that supports the war in Iraq have anything to do with campaign financing? If you consider that even though the country is facing recession, the Dow still manages to post gains. When you consider that many trust and pension funds contain oil companies and defense contractors in their portfolios, it’s no wonder that the Obama Campaign supports the minority because that’s where the money is. In my opinion, to come out of the gate appearing hawkish is good for Obama’s bottom line. This can always be rectified later, after contributions by bundlers are collected. Once the money is in he can always shift his focus to the 70% that helped him win the nomination, in other words, practical politics.
While so many Americans cling to the promise that there can be “change” and chant “yes we can!”, maybe it’s time that the liberal/progressive faction of the Democratic Party stop choking up and also dry the tears of joy that mist their eyes. So far in this campaigning before the conventions we can see that practicality seems to overshadow ideals and conscience. It’s back to business as usual in this presidential campaign, another example that illustrates that money does indeed make the world go ‘round. I’m convinced that the only real change we’ll see in the Obama Campaign is that the sainted Democratic Senator from Illinois will not accept public campaign funds. Why should he when you consider that he is being funded from both ideological sides of the fence? Nice strategy…as long as it doesn’t backfire.
This presidential race has become a “gotcha” fest of the lowest moral caliber. Instead of portraying themselves as morally worthy of holding the highest office in the land, the two major party candidates have consistently raised the bar of what is considered acceptable to Americans. Time and time again, ideas and policy statements that would have been unthinkable in the 20th century are now commonplace rhetoric on a planet that has seemingly forgotten the horrors of nuclear warfare, and now has become inured to scenes of death and destruction of civilian populations in the name of bringing “democracy and freedom” to the corpses that litter the streets and back alleys of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The American people are asked to accept pandering to the right by both candidates in the name of a “winning strategy” that will enable their candidate to win the election. Time and time again I hear the words “political expediency” when supporters of either candidate brings up the question of the use of force. We are consistently told that in order to win the presidency the candidates cannot seem to be soft on terrorism or soft on defense for that would show them as “spineless” and cost them dearly on Election Day. These types of arguments are given to the so-called liberal/progressives that make up a big part of the alternative media that is called “the blogosphere”. The reality of the situation is that both Obama and McCain both seem to have veered sharply to the right of their previous positions when they weren’t looking to win the White House.
One must wonder why, when some pollsters claim that over 70% of the American people want to withdraw from Iraq, they consistently pander to the 20-30% of Americans that support this war. It would seem that a winning strategy would to embrace the 70% of Americans that want an end to this protracted war that has cost this country almost a trillion dollars and over 4,000 dead American soldiers. That would make better political sense than aligning with the 30% that want to continue the war. Why aren’t both major candidates doing that in the name of political expedience?
One can only surmise the intentions of both Obama and McCain. Saber-rattling and posturing towards attacking Iran would seem to be counter-productive to reaching the 70% of the voters that cast their votes in November. If both candidates don’t care about alienating this 70% than there must be a good reason, the facts behind their behavior are fairly obvious, that is, if one simply follows the money.
Here is a sampling of donor information pulled from The Center for Responsive Government;
“Wall Street seems to have selected Barack Obama for its own major investment this election cycle. Traditionally an industry that gives to Republicans, securities and investment companies have been pouring money into the coffers of both the Illinois senator and former Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, giving nearly $15 million combined to the two, according to Reuters, citing data from CRP.”
“Overall, 57 percent of this industry's contributions to the race (including all candidates who have run) have been to Democratic candidates. Since the start of 2007, Obama has received $7.9 million, with Clinton only about $800,000 behind. Should Obama continue to be this industry's financial favorite, it will become the first time since 1994 that the Democrats will have brought in more Wall Street donations than the Republicans. In the 2004 election cycle, President Bush collected nearly twice that of Democrat John Kerry from the securities and investment industry--$9.2 million compared to $4.8 million. This cycle, Republican candidate John McCain, who would likely be less tough on trade and regulation than Obama, still falls short with a mere $4.1 million.”
Could the practice of wooing the 30% of the population that supports the war in Iraq have anything to do with campaign financing? If you consider that even though the country is facing recession, the Dow still manages to post gains. When you consider that many trust and pension funds contain oil companies and defense contractors in their portfolios, it’s no wonder that the Obama Campaign supports the minority because that’s where the money is. In my opinion, to come out of the gate appearing hawkish is good for Obama’s bottom line. This can always be rectified later, after contributions by bundlers are collected. Once the money is in he can always shift his focus to the 70% that helped him win the nomination, in other words, practical politics.
While so many Americans cling to the promise that there can be “change” and chant “yes we can!”, maybe it’s time that the liberal/progressive faction of the Democratic Party stop choking up and also dry the tears of joy that mist their eyes. So far in this campaigning before the conventions we can see that practicality seems to overshadow ideals and conscience. It’s back to business as usual in this presidential campaign, another example that illustrates that money does indeed make the world go ‘round. I’m convinced that the only real change we’ll see in the Obama Campaign is that the sainted Democratic Senator from Illinois will not accept public campaign funds. Why should he when you consider that he is being funded from both ideological sides of the fence? Nice strategy…as long as it doesn’t backfire.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Obama Should Filibuster FISA Law in Senate!
It seems as if we have been debating the FISA Laws forever. It isn’t a difficult task in understanding how the thing is supposed to work. The original law was fine as it was, and I believe that the President circumvented the law because of his arrogance, not because the law was too unwieldy. The intent, I believe, was to make the FISA Law that way so any Federal Agency that wanted to eavesdrop on American citizens had to go through the mechanics of justifying the act.
Apparently the Bush Administration thought that the law was outdated for this day and age, so they circumvented the FISA statutes. This is typical of this administration, if you don’t like the law, just go ahead and break it. God forbid you work to change the law, break it first and after you have done this deed, ask a compliant Congress to cover-up the crime by changing the law to suit the administration’s needs.
The granting of immunity to the telecom industry sets the precedent to grant the President immunity, according to some. That’s outrageous! Why should we as a nation allow this administration to break any law it chooses? Where is the “Rule of Law” in this nation? The presumed Democratic nominee took no issue with the House when they changed the law to fit the administration’s needs and with that, granted immunity to the telecom industry for breaking the law, along with the executive branch. Senator Barack Obama told the nation that he will remove the immunity provision when it gets to the Senate. What I would like to know is how can Obama insure that the immunity provision of the bill is rescinded? It would be a neat trick if he were the sitting President, but being a junior Senator, the prospect of providing a veto-proof rescission of the immunity clause is a hell of a thing to tout. If he can even stop the bill from passing through the Senate with the immunity clause intact that would be enough.
The only way that he could stop this bill from becoming law, due to the compliant House and Senate, would be to filibuster this piece of legislation. This one act of courage on the part of this Senator would insure that he gets my vote in November. The facts are that to do anything less is tantamount to letting the Executive Branch of the federal government permission to break the law at will. Senator Obama, as a constitutional scholar, should know and understand this. When the Senate votes on this bill this week, I expect to see a filibuster if it looks as if the bill will pass through the Senate intact. This is what the American people expect from a genuine leader, not vague promises of “change”, but concrete steps to return to the rule of law in this nation. He must understand that he doesn’t have to be president to make this happen; he can show his courage right where he is.
Apparently the Bush Administration thought that the law was outdated for this day and age, so they circumvented the FISA statutes. This is typical of this administration, if you don’t like the law, just go ahead and break it. God forbid you work to change the law, break it first and after you have done this deed, ask a compliant Congress to cover-up the crime by changing the law to suit the administration’s needs.
The granting of immunity to the telecom industry sets the precedent to grant the President immunity, according to some. That’s outrageous! Why should we as a nation allow this administration to break any law it chooses? Where is the “Rule of Law” in this nation? The presumed Democratic nominee took no issue with the House when they changed the law to fit the administration’s needs and with that, granted immunity to the telecom industry for breaking the law, along with the executive branch. Senator Barack Obama told the nation that he will remove the immunity provision when it gets to the Senate. What I would like to know is how can Obama insure that the immunity provision of the bill is rescinded? It would be a neat trick if he were the sitting President, but being a junior Senator, the prospect of providing a veto-proof rescission of the immunity clause is a hell of a thing to tout. If he can even stop the bill from passing through the Senate with the immunity clause intact that would be enough.
The only way that he could stop this bill from becoming law, due to the compliant House and Senate, would be to filibuster this piece of legislation. This one act of courage on the part of this Senator would insure that he gets my vote in November. The facts are that to do anything less is tantamount to letting the Executive Branch of the federal government permission to break the law at will. Senator Obama, as a constitutional scholar, should know and understand this. When the Senate votes on this bill this week, I expect to see a filibuster if it looks as if the bill will pass through the Senate intact. This is what the American people expect from a genuine leader, not vague promises of “change”, but concrete steps to return to the rule of law in this nation. He must understand that he doesn’t have to be president to make this happen; he can show his courage right where he is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
