There are no words that can sum up the evil visited upon the 12 victims in Paris today, sparked by satirical cartoons lampooning Islam. Those who use violence against innocents to try to prove a point simply lack the intelligence and rational thought to achieve their ends any other way.
And so it is with the these terrorists. They were so offended (on behalf of a supposedly omnipotent and all-powerful being) that they decided to kill the people responsible for publishing a cartoon and anyone who got in their way. The response throughout the day once the news became widespread is yet more evidence that the pen can and will outlast the sword.
This evening a friend of the blog called out CNN The Lead reporter Jake Tapper, on a point about terrorists killing other Muslims in the name of Islam. The following was the last paragraph in a blog post on The Lead's blog about online terrorist chatter regarding Malaysia Airlines Flight 370:
"But there's been a very strong push back from some of these jihadist forums that there were Muslims on board, an so taking down an airplane that killed Muslims was at its core an act not supported by Islam," said Jones.
This is a classic bullshit argument by terrorist organizations like Al Qaida, who claim that killing co-religionists goes against Islam and, thus, against their murderous dogma. It is well known that Al Qaida actually murders more Muslims than any other group of people in their terrorist acts, which Nihar called out to Tapper.
A lot of the reaction was "Oh, well, everyone knows the Post is trash" or "Oh, well most of cable news is garbage anyway." I don't necessarily disagree with either of those sentiments, but at the same time they are news outlets and are looked to in times of information demand (the latter certainly more than the former.)
Today's "reporting" has shown why outlets like the New York Times and the major networks are still the king of clean and polished reports for breaking news. While outlets like CNN and AP and Boston.com were reporting that a suspect was in custody and heading to the courthouse, the Times and the major networks held off on reporting this.
Just for contrast, I'll write what was confirmed, and then in bold what was extracted from that by some irresponsible media outlets:
Of course, this led to everyone scrambling to get to the courthouse, amassing outside. Then a bomb threat was relayed to the courthouse, causing a massive evacuation made much more logistically complicated thanks to all of the reporters who were there on false reports of a suspect in custody. It was a microcosm of shoddy journalism complicating legitimate law enforcement activities. A shameful one, at that.
I lump in all of the cable news networks together. If you're a right winger, you watch Fox News. A leftie? MSNBC is where you head. Stuck in an airport? CNN. The one thing all channels have in common is that they are driven by ratings over journalism and are not legitimate sources of good, hard information.
I will take this time to call out the Twitter account @BuzzFeedNews. Tweets like "Police SUV with dark tinted windows just pulled around to the back." or "WCVB: Van back into U.S. Fed. courthouse." are just asinine. Yes, law enforcement vehicles (including tinted SUVs and vans) can be found outside of a federal courthouse, sometimes moving, on any day of the year. To report this as some kind of significant news event is borderline predatory for pageviews and retweets. One thing it cannot be categorized as is news.
A friend of mine made a good point today. Assume that CNN or some other outlet was first in getting the scoop of an arrest. Next week, most people would forget who had it first. But everyone will certainly remember when CNN blasted "SUSPECT ARRESTED" on their website. They'll remember CNN anchors excitedly saying that an arrest has been made in the case. People don't forget that kind of misstep.
So what do we know? Well, for one, CNN learned absolutely nothing from their healthcare misreporting less than a year ago. We learned that for some reason, executives still view CNN as an industry-leader in the breaking news category. We learned that Wolf Blitzer and Jon King should not be on air during breaking news events. Unless you're interested in the relatively mundane traffic patterns outside of the Moakley Courthouse, @BuzzFeedNews probably isn't a good feed to follow. And when someone cites "a source," wait until clearer reports come out, preferable with a named official, before taking something and running with it.
Woodrow Wilson in his first posed photograph following his series of strokes.
His wife Edith steadies the document for him, allowing Wilson to sign it. (Wikimedia)
In my podcast this week a listener mentioned that when someone runs for office, he or she loses all semblance of a private life. Their personal business is broadcast for all to see and nothing is kept sacred. One example I used during the episode was FDR's polio and the fact that it was kept a secret to the American public despite the media's knowledge of it.
Andrew from California wrote to me after the podcast to say that he agreed that someone in a wheelchair would probably not be elected these days because of the large role that image plays in politics, but he also pointed to two historical examples in which a president's ailments was kept from the American public to the public's detriment.
The first actually involved FDR. While he was running for a fourth term, he was in very poor health from decades of stress from his polio. Tests at Bethesda in March of 1944 showed him suffering from numerous ailments, including coronary artery disease and congestive heart disease.
So should the electorate been notified of this health report? Some reports out of Yalta portrayed Roosevelt as a sick and weak man who Stalin was able to manipulate to get more favorable terms as World War II was coming to a close. This is called the "sick man at Yalta" theory. If true, it certainly makes an argument for disclosing presidents' health to the public.
As Andrew also points out in his email, four presidents before FDR the American public were kept in the dark about the failing health of our nation's leader. Coincidentally, Woodrow Wilson's health issues began during major peace talks during World War I. During the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, Wilson may have suffered from the Spanish Influenza, which in turn may have contributed to Wilson ceding some points of contention to French PM Clemenceau, who wanted to weaken the German state as much as possible as opposed to Wilson's more conciliatory approach and his Fourteen Points.
Wilson returned to the States to face further battles with the Senate to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, mainly from the Republican-controlled Senate and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. During these political battles, Wilson suffered a series of strokes that left him incapacitated, leaving his wife to essentially run the country in his stead. The treaty was rejected by Congress.
Now a conspiritorial-minded individual could try to connect dots here and say that Wilson's illness and subsequent inability to ratify the Treaty of Versailles in the US led to a harshly punished, and thus resentful, Germany contributing to the rise of Hitler and the National Socialist party and WWII. You could then further say that FDR's ailments led to an emboldened and stronger Soviet Union, whose post-war maneuverings led to the Cold War.
Obviously it would be ridiculous to say that the collective health of Wilson and Roosevelt led to both WWII and the Cold War. But to chalk up their health as non-factors in an historical context would be just as ridiculous.
Which brings us back to Andrew's point: does the public have a right to know? In my podcast I didn't take a stance, saying only that politicians open themselves up to this kind of scrutiny when they run for office and this could be a deterrent for some qualified candidates.
In my humble opinion, there's a line in what the public should know about politicians running for office. I don't want to elect a president whose heart is failing or who has suffered multiple strokes or has a terminal disease with a negative prognosis, because I have to assume as a voter that their ability to lead will be hamstrung by their disease and its treatments, not to mention the heightened risk of death in such an individual. Additionally, as a constituent, I feel this information is worthy of sharing when it comes to a powerful elected leader. I do not need to know, however, if a president's cholesterol is only slightly high or their prostate is a bit swollen and they have trouble urinating. Like I said, there's a line.
But I think that's the problem in today's media. While something like a past stroke ought to be reported on and would be, something like a gland problem that would make the president sweat more than the average individual should not be reported, but still would be. But with the 24 hour news cycle, there is no line that isn't crossed in order to bring in viewers, no matter how capricious the story. So while it would be nice to have responsible reporting on a candidate's health, it simply is not possible thanks to the media's overindulgence in every possible aspect of a candidate's life—no holds barred—to get viewer share.
The fall out from the WikiLeaks disclosure of numerous classified military documents continues today, with one Congressman legitimately calling for Pfc. Bradley Manning's execution and Congress as a whole alienating bloggers and new media from a pending "media shield" bill. In other words, just a bunch of folks not getting it.
I know I've been picking on CNN lately, but it's so easy. I got a Breaking News email alert stating that BP was working on yet another soon-to-be failure. Usually I just delete them and move on with my day, but the last clause really caught me (I'm a sucker for the semi-colon). "Oil flows freely into Gulf." That's not breaking news, as oil has been flowing as free as a bird into the Gulf for the last 82 days. What's breaking news is that the geniuses at BP who have discovered how to get at oil miles below the ocean's bottom cannot stop a leak in one of their own pipes a mile below the ocean's surface. Every day that goes by I am further amazed at the utter lack of ability at a $246+ billion company. You think $20 billion is enough to pay for all damages resulting from this confluence of ineptitude? Not even close. What's breaking news is just how clueless everyone involved seems to be.
I happened upon this on CNN last night. I was already a little peeved about the whole Lebron James self-serving press conference thing ("The Decision" - are you kidding me?) and when you pair that with a story about some celebrity who I don't care about's manicure, you're bound to garner my ire. This is why CNN specifically, and 24 hour news networks in general, has lost serious points in the "respect" column.
On Monday, I had the opportunity to sit in on a talk by Joe Romm, author of the Climate Progress blog. He's a physicist by trade, and an incredibly bright guy. He's worked in the clean energy sector for decades, and recently joined the ranks of the Center for American Progress to blog about climate change science and policies.
Joe Romm must be the most frustrated guy in the world. He has a vast wealth of knowledge about climate change, climate policies, the coverage of the media, and all the subtleties and details of what needs to be done, and of that, what isn't being done at all.
When I got a CNN Breaking News email (which are getting ridiculous, but that's another post for another time) about an alleged shoe-bomber on a Washington to Denver flight I thought, "How the hell did somebody get explosives on a domestic flight?" Well, as usual, the media had jumped the gun and reported on rumors that had little basis in fact. The reality was a Qatar diplomat flouted the well-established rule of no smoking on airline flights and tried to sneak a cigarette in the lavatory. When asked by an air marshal on the flight what he was doing, the diplomat allegedly responded sarcastically that he was lighting his shoes on fire. At that point he was restrained and taken into custody by the air marshal for the rest of the flight and questioned by G-Men once the United Airlines plane landed safely in Denver.
Ostensibly in an effort to cater to the partisan ideologues that watch 24-hour news networks and provide them with their ratings, CNN hired conservative blogger Erick Erickson in March to contribute to John King's program. On his radio show on Thursday, Erickson said that if a census worker with an American Community Survey form came by his house, he would "pull out my wife's shotgun and see how that little ACS twerp likes being scared at the door." He went on:
"They're not going on my property. They can't do that. They don't have the legal right, and yet they're trying. The servants are becoming the masters. We are working for the government. We are becoming enslaved by the government."
In case anyone still thought Politico was an unbiased journalistic publication, note that they put up an article last night titled "Some Dems walk the plank with 'yes' vote." Sure, it may turn out to be a politically risky move for many vulnerable Democrats who ultimately voted for the health reform bill, but Politico doesn't have the credentials in the realm of clairvoyance to be able to make that assessment just yet.
In fact, the conventional wisdom in many circles is that Democrats who don't vote for the bill will simply be lumped in with Obama in the nasty world of opponent rhetoric anyway, and will simply lose out on the opportunity to tout the fact that they just ended decades of irresponsible practices by health insurance companies and provided insurance to tens of millions of uninsured Americans. But I guess that's just as good as walking the plank.
As the House and Senate have been on August recess, their "town hall meetings"—largely focused on health care legislation—have been met with vociferous, angry, and even violent opponents of any reform. These right-wing conservatives, feeding off each other's anger as well as that of inflammatory media pundits, are taking a stand against what they see as a "government takeover" of health insurance, which they associate with the worst of evils, many comparing it to Socialism, or even Nazism.
Unfortunately, much of this contrived anger and fear is a result of irresponsible media neglecting to provide facts on what the current health care bills would actually change (the government would, in fact, not be "taking over" any insurance options, and there was never anything close to a "death panel" proposed, as ex-governor Palin had insisted last week). And much of it is simply the conservative Republican effort to derail Obama and the Democrats' platform in order to blame them for a slew of failures come 2010, and pick up Congressional seats (even if it does mean leaving millions of Americans without health insurance—a minor hitch to an otherwise noble plan).
But now, finding that this public, "grassroots" (or "astroturf," as some are calling it) outcry strategy is actually working—despite its largely uninformed, and sometimes clandestinely confederate perpetrators—the oil industry is planning to apply it to its opposition to climate legislation in the Senate.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) has written to its member companies asking them to "move aggressively" to stage dozens of anti-climate bill gatherings across the country, mostly in states with swing voters in the Senate. Greenpeace acquired the letter that API distributed, which outlines many of the same false arguments that have been plaguing the climate debate for months. At one point, the letter reads:
After hearing that Waxman-Markey-like legislation could increase the costs of gasoline to around $4 and lead to significant job losses . . . audiences changed their opinions on the bill significantly. Opposition to the bill within the policy influentials cohort grew 23 points, from 40% to 63%; with a 19 point increase in those who now “strongly” oppose the legislation.
What this letter fails to mention is that the $4 figure above comes from research by the Heritage Foundation, which asserts that gasoline will reach that price in 2035. That's 26 years away. And we just had $4 per gallon gas last year, only there were few fuel-efficient cars that found themselves immune to the hikes. I can guarantee that with functional climate change regulations, and more responsible consumer behavior, there will be an abundance of alternatives that will render such a gasoline price increase insignificant. But API doesn't give credence to these trivial details.
So now these astroturf groups—meant to look like regular citizen groups, but actually groups funded by corporations, trade associations, and lobbying firms—will have their voices heard much more readily than those they are impersonating.
And the saddest part is that the targeted Senators, even though they will likely be mindful of these charades, will still be affected by them. Instead of taking a strong stance against artificially engineered rallies and pervasive lies, many Senators will ultimately bow to the pressure exerted upon them—and fueled by the media, who report not on facts, but on spectacles.
If the public were fairly informed about issues like health care and climate change, the debate would be completely lopsided in favor of a comprehensive overhaul of policy on both fronts. But well-endowed corporations, ratings-driven media, and Senators susceptible to being weakened with lies and bought with contributions, are playing no part in helping to accurately educate voters. And those frightening realities of our modern democracy could end up dismantling some of the most important legislative initiatives in our history.
Images: Violent town hall meeting (The National), API Presdient Jack Gerard (flickr), Senator Arlen Specter at a town hall meeting (Philly.com)
Congressman Frank Kratovil (D-MD) hung in effigy (DailyKos)
Given all of the hullabaloo going on about the health care town hall debates (and the ensuing mainstream media soap boxes being handed to crazy healthcare protestors), I thought to myself, what do you do if you're a sensible person who opposes healthcare because of the facts contained in the bill and not because of some irrational, made-up fear of euthanizing people once they get their AARP brochures?
The behavior of some of the members of the Republican Party the past couple of days has been pretty discouraging. I discussed last week Rush Limbaugh comparing the Obama administration to Hitler's Germany, as well as Palin's thinly veiled eugenics comparison and your run-of-the-mill town hall protestors likening Obama to one of history's most evil villains. But these folks have gone beyond the Hitler comparisons (that was soooo last week) and have moved to straight up racism. While those looking to harass Rep. David Scott (D-Georgia) started out with the played-out swastika graffiti, they really stepped it up with their correspondence:
So what do you do if you're a reasonable fellow who disagrees with Obama's plan to introduce a government option, but don't necessarily want to paint Hitler mustaches on our President's likeness, carry a loaded gun to town halls, ignore what's in the bill and argue on made-up death panels, or call black politicians "niggas"? You're certainly not going to be given airtime on one of the networks or cable news stations, because you're not incendiary or loud enough to draw in viewers. As soon as you tell someone you disagree with Obama's healthcare proposal one of the first things that comes to mind (if you follow the news) is swastikas and loaded guns. It's sad that the actions of a few have smeared the reputation of the many (like Islamic extremists casting a dark shadow over Islam), but unfortunately it seems like in this era of mass media ratings and toeing the line between controversial and pulling-all-of-our-advertising controversial, the most outrageous and ridiculous voices get heard while the reasonable or well-grounded are labeled boring and unworthy of debate. Maybe the Republicans can go with Nixon's silent majority scheme - internally.
Today CNN is just realizing how embarrassing it is to have Lou Dobbs associated with your name. Dobbs, who has latched onto the whole "birthers" movement like a dog in heat, will simply not let go of the debunked rumor that Obama was not born in the United States and, according to Section II Article 1 of the Constitution, is thus ineligible to be president. While Dobbs states that the only reason he brings up the birthers movement is to be fair (he states that he believes Obama was born in Hawaii), it's like giving equal airtime to the person who says 2+2=5, because it would not be fair to simply say they're "wrong."
Instead I wanted to discuss a cable news network Howard Beale wannabe. While this blog makes a good point about what we should shed light upon, and what we should simply ignore and allow the public ridicule to overtake, my argument is that if we do ignore something like Dobbs' embarrassing "reporting" about Obama's birthplace, it might reach more mainstream markets like, I don't know, CNN or something (oops). Seriously, it's fine if we see folks like Hannity or Beck or Dobbs as the jesters they are; there to make a buck while entertaining folks. It's when we start taking them seriously that we run into trouble.
A lot of folks are saying just ignore Dobbs, which I am wont to do. I've seen his show a few times, but getting through an entire episode is torturous. As Dobbs' ratings continue to drop, CNN might have no choice but to dump him (notice they'll allow him to be a national laughing-stock on company time, but cut into ratings and ad revenue and you get the ax). But the fact that the birthers movement has even made it to a semi-reputable news agency like CNN speaks volumes; no more is it relegated to the Daily Show or Colbert Report or Fox News to be laughed at; it's now "news." In honor of Dobbs, tomorrow's post will be baseless claims that I don't personally believe, but I feel need to be given sufficient airtime, such as the revelation that Dobbs was actually born in Antarctica and illegally entered the United States on the back of a polar bear. Peace.
While I was caught up with Gates-gate, something else was happening that I wanted to expand upon but did not have the time: Sarah Palin's abrupt departure from the governorship of Alaska. While bizarre by itself - as someone who constantly touted her executive experience leading the state on the campaign trail with John McCain last year - her parting words were very similar to another embarrassment for the Republican Party.
When Richard Nixon lost his bid for the governorship of California in 1962, he gave what he deemed his "last press conference," telling the media that they won't have "Nixon to kick around anymore." He hoped that his words would make "the press recognize that they have a right and responsibility to, that if they're against a candidate, to give him the shaft, but also recognize that if they give him the shaft, put one lonely reporter on the campaign who will report what the candidate says now and then." We all know that this was not Nixon's last press conference, and he went on to win the presidency of the United States, and then tarnished the office like no one else could.
Contrast Nixon's "last press conference" with Palin's "last press conference." She stated, "You represent what could and should be a respected, honest profession that could and should be a cornerstone of our democracy. Democracy depends on you, and that is why -- that’s why our troops are willing to die for you. So how about in honor of the American soldier, you quit makin’ things up." So the formula for the fake last press conference goes as follows: tell the press what their job/responsibility is, and then cry foul for being personally attacked by the media. It sounds like Palin thinks she got shafted like Nixon.
But Palin's criticisms of the media is akin to the boy crying wolf. Remember back in October when she tried to say that the media was infringing upon her right to free speech? Comments like that tend to illegitimize one's views on a particular subject. Did Palin get a bum rap in the media? Sure. The real question is, did she deserve it? The way I see it, the media just did the majority of the vetting that McCain's campaign neglected to do. Were some of the media's things wrong? Sure. The last thing I would have done is publish a story that said that the governor's newborn was her daughter's unless I was 110% sure it was true. Hurtful? You bet. But again, and I'm not saying that Palin was asking for it, because it was way out of line, but did Palin think that the media was going to play fair?
I mean, come on, this is a country which has produced Rush Limbaugh as a figurehead of the Republican Party. A person who plays "Barack the Magic Negro" on his show, a person who says that he hopes the Commander-in-Chief fails, who goes through wives like underwear and who gets away with illegal drug transactions by paying the DA's office, is one of the most influential media elites. Bill O'Reilly, someone who pays off a former employee after sexually harrassing her. Hell, G. Gordon Liddy has a nationally syndicated radio program. And Palin brought her family (which was in turmoil) into this company, thinking the media had a code of conduct?
Unfortunately, it just seems to be the nature of the game. It's almost like a rite of passage. McCain went through it in 2000, Obama sure as hell went through it (they had to dig as deep as Rashid Khalidi - seriously?). Palin went through it, as well. So while Palin may have a point in that she was not treated well by the media (for justified and unjustified reasons), to say that it was unfair is a bit much, as the media tried to dig up as much as possible on everyone (remember George Stephanopoulos' question about Ayers that was fed to him by Sean Hannity?). Hell, we're having a debate during one of the most trying times in America about where Barack Obama was born. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.
Is the media messed up? Of course. Have I done too many question and answer phrases in this post? Absolutely. But the one thing about the media is this: by debasing everybody in order to get more viewers and ad revenue (you think O'Reilly's $9 million salary pays for itself?) it puts everyone on an even playing field. Sure, that playing field may be extremely muddy and a crappy one to play on, but everyone's on it. So Palin's right, the media does not play nice, but by selling out and sensationalizing everything, in a sense one could say that they play fair. And besides, America already fell for the whole "silent majority" and "I'm being unfairly targeted as a bad person" thing with Tricky Dick Nixon. And if you think we're going to fall for that again because we'd rather focus on an already debunked rumor than the issues and what this nation really needs, well, then you might be in the right spot (provided you can prove beyond your birth certificate, local newspapers, governors, and non-partisan fact checkers that you were born here). Peace.
A new study by the Pew Research Center shows that there is a vast disconnect between the views of American scientists and the American public. Only about half of the public agrees that climate change is caused by humans, and 11 percent believes climate change doesn't exist at all. About one third of Americans believe there is still an ongoing debate on the subject. Meanwhile, nearly all scientists believe that human activity is directly related to climate change.
Many in the scientific community acknowledge that they have not done enough, and scientists in general do not do enough, to actively engage the public with regard to their research and findings. The media also deserves some blame for focusing too much on "both sides" of issues, instead of on objective expertise. But ultimately, scientists tend not to have any more say in public policy than anyone else, and in many cases, are largely overlooked or ignored.
The notion of American democracy is predicated upon the will of the people. And though it is not always the people who in fact have their will carried out (I'll touch on this in a later post), it is clear that the will of the people—the laypeople, if you will—is not necessarily the most logical, utilitarian, or even remotely beneficial drive for public policy. Indeed, the average person is caught up in their own narrow context within society (How much money will this cost me? How does this benefit me? Why should I care?).
One of the biggest selling points for conservatism is its championship of low taxes. And don't get me wrong; I don't like paying taxes either, and I happen to think there is a huge amount of government spending that is unnecessary, wasteful, and even harmful. But many Republican politicians capitalize on Americans' general attitudes by justifying our seemingly innate selfishness with their tirades against spending—even on programs that will ultimately serve to benefit far more people in the long run (e.g. universal health care).
Americans don't want to be taxed and don't want to have our money taken away. Americans don't want "government standing between you and your doctor," and don't want to have to pay more for the energy we consume. And so it makes sense that politicians exploit these widespread aversions. But this black and white idea of government staying out of our business and leaving us and our money alone simply doesn't make sense. In a world where no perfect market exists, it is government's responsibility to protect consumers, provide people with basic services that everyone should be entitled to (education, health care, public safety, etc.), and address negative externalities that affect citizens who would otherwise not be able to defend themselves.
When people are thinking strictly about their wallets—in part because politicians and the media are only fanning the flames of citizens' all-too-narrow perspectives of public policy—it serves to undermine the well being of society as a whole. Americans too often don't possess the wherewithal to make sound judgments about what policies would be best for them and the country as whole, especially in the long run.
And this doesn't even account for the increasingly frightening reality that people outside of the US are greatly affected by our activities. In the case of climate change, the people who are most vulnerable to losing their livelihoods, largely because of our country's exorbitant consumption habits, have absolutely no voice—within the context of our narrow Westphalian nation-state democracy—to be able to enact or even influence any changes.
The idea of the "perfection" of republican democracy is still hotly debated. People with no expertise or far-reaching knowledge about most subjects elect representatives—often for reasons that have little or nothing to do with policy initiatives—who are meant to serve the needs and wants of their constituents (and often exploit constituents' fears and selfish tendencies to maintain their own power). Policymakers and their advisers are too often far disconnected from the scientific community, and see no political advantage to seeking expert advice. Meanwhile, their policies can affect Americans and non-Americans alike who are unable to influence the political process at all. Modern democracy has serious flaws that continue to go unaddressed today.
Then again, as Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." Benevolent dictatorship, anyone?
Anyone who heard about what Sarah Palin said to Chris Plante, host of a conservative radio show, must be confused (as I am). She thinks that because the media has called her attacks on Obama regarding Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and RashidKhalidi negative (was she trying to paint them in a positive light? If not, then it's negative) her right to freedom of speech that is guaranteed in the First Amendment is in danger of being infringed upon.
Full interview, Part I:
Part II:
(Skip to 0:50 in part 2 to hear Palin's comment on freedom of speech)
It is quite clear that Palin is in troubled waters with this comment. To begin with, a private entity (like the media) cannot illegally infringe upon one's freedom of speech (at least if that person is not an employee; you enter a grayer area when it comes to the EEOC) because that right is guaranteed under the Constitution and thus requires a state action to even to be considered as an infringement of that right. Secondly, in the type of open environment that we as United States citizens and residents are lucky enough to enjoy, there is what is called a "marketplace of ideas," to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes. One person says something, another person can respond, others can join in and rebuttals and such can be offered up. That is part of the beauty of America. Debate is necessary to bring out the truth.
So to say that because you are criticized your freedom of speech is being infringed upon is ridiculous. The same tenet that gives one the right to say whatever he/she wants gives someone else the right to criticize you (add freedom of the press guaranteed by the same amendment and the media's ability to call something negative is enhanced). To say that because someone rebuts what you say or paints it in a way that you do not find favorable it infringes on your freedom of speech (and thus the party who criticized you should not do so for the greater "good" of the people's first amendment right) is ridiculous and totalitarian.
Additionally, there are many people in the world who would love to be in Sarah Palin's shoes when it comes to free speech. To people in nations like China, Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea (to name a few) if some criticism were all that accompanied speaking out against the government (which Palin is certainly doing when she talks about the Washington elite, etc.) they would be ecstatic. Instead they must deal with beatings, imprisonment, even death for exercising their human right to free speech, and they still manage to use that right whenever possible. For Palin to say that the media calling her attacks on Obama negative (again, there are no positive attacks) a potential infringement on her freedom of speech is insulting.
If Palin is feeling bullied by the media for calling her ridiculous assertions that Obama's policies will be shaped by some hippy like Bill Ayers negative, she needs to either begin talking about the issues or, if she wants to continue to try to smear Obama, deal with it. Freedom of speech goes two ways, and to say that the first amendment's dichotomous nature is preventing the utilization of the right in the first place is ludicrous. Is Palin under media scrutiny? You're damn right. When you're a heartbeat away from the presidency and your own running mate does not vet you and all you have to talk about is Obama's acquaintances instead of the issues, what can you expect? Obama, McCain, and Biden have gone through the same process, though it was months and months ago and people seem to forget it (Stephanopoulos anyone?). It also does not help that she has made many missteps so far in front of the nation (I can see Russia from my house!). Palin likes to say that she calls them like she sees them. It seems as if the media is doing the same thing with her. Peace.
Just a quick reminder to the media: the election is a week from now and has not occurred yet. With all of the reporting lately on Obama's poll numbers and that 60+ Democratic Congress, one would think that November 4 has come and gone and Obama was president-elect and Pelosi and Reid the two most powerful people in Washington. Not so fast.
So who is predicting all of this Obama and Democratic-led hoopla? The media, the pundits, and also the McCain campaign. Obama and his staffers like to remind themselves of what happened in New Hampshire and say that they are playing it like they are 10 points down, not 16 up. Obama reminded his supporters in New Hampshire that you have to run through the finish line and not let up during the last portion of the race:
But McCain seems to be jumping on the fact that many people have "written him off." He continues to point to the poll numbers, reminding people that he is down by a lot:
While McCain's strategy of playing the underdog may work, it also is a big gamble (like most of his campaign since picking Palin). While it may get some voters to go to the polls because they think they can help give McCain a surge in the election, it could also get people to either stay home (thinking that it is a lost cause to vote for him when he is down by so much) or vote for Obama (for the same reason). A gamble, but like McCain's other gambles (see: Palin), it may not work out.
Through all of this we have the media fanning the flames from the sidelines. With headlines like "Republicans scramble after Stevens conviction" and "Polls show McCain not making up ground in Ohio," it's hard to imagine that many in the media do not forsee an Obama victory next Tuesday. The words "scramble" and "not making up ground" seem to be based on the assumption that Republicans are panicked and McCain is desperately seeking to catch up to Obama. We do not know if these things are true (though, to be fair about the Stevens article, some Republicans are asking Alaskans to vote for Stevens even if they think he's guilty because if he steps down the Alaskan governor (a Republican) will be able to appoint a conservative replacement - that's just desperate). Polls are not 100% accurate, and we still do not know the full extent of the Bradley Effect. Many pundits will say, "Oh, well a lot has changed since then there are plenty of excuses that people can come up with to not vote for Obama than they could have with Tom Bradley." I just do not buy this. If someone is embarassed to say that they do not want to vote for Obama because he is black, are they going to say that they don't like him because he is a Muslim or is buddy-buddy with Bill Ayers (two things that have been definitively debunked)? The Bradley effect assumes that those who take part in it have shame; people who claim Obama is a Muslim or is going to take advice from some hippie like Bill Ayers have none of it.
We should all take Obama's advice and not count the chickens before they hatch. The media simply wants to paint a big picture of a landslide victory (the whole divided America, red state blue state crap is a little played out). It's not liberal bias (though one could argue it is a backlash against Bush who played the media big time leading up to Iraq - don't forget that the media didn't treat Carter too well when things were looking bad for the country). If the roles were reversed we would be talking about what went wrong in the Obama campaign (is it because he's black? Too liberal? Was it the Ayers/Wright stuff?). Election Day is seven days away and anything could happen, so don't play along with the media's assumptions. Peace.
Photos - McCain and Obama under a polling logo (ABC News), Obama and wife Michelle after the Senator conceded the New Hampshire primary (LA Times)
All eyes this week will be on Denver, Colorado as the Democrats host their primary convention. A lot has been going on lately in the Democratic camp, with Biden being selected by Obama to be his vice president (he could have done better, but he also could have done worse; Biden was a safe choice) and pre-convention business taking place at a rapid pace. While Obama and Biden should be the focus of this week, Hillary Clinton and her husband have garnered a large chunk of the spotlight. McCain has tried to capitalize on this with an ad deriding Obama's VP choice not being Hillary. He says that Hillary "spoke the truth" about Obama and that's why she did not pick him. It is a factually tenuous ad, what with Hillary's Bosnia-sniper-fire-esque assertions during the campaign, but that's another story.
Hillary has denounced the ad, putting on a face and saying that nothing is wrong and the party could not be better. One major factor in the convention will not be how Hillary acts and bullshits about, but how her husband behaves himself. Even while in Africa Bill has had a tendency to stir up the pot and insert himself in the campaign when his actions this year have shown to be more harmful than helpful this election (for both his wife and the Party). The real key to whether the mass media will declare unity in Denver is how Bill Clinton acts. One misstep from Bubba's beak and the news outlets will jump on it.
It's also a bit funny that the Democrats are the ones who are being labeled troubled internally. How quickly we forget when McCain was dogged for not being conservative enough for the Republican Party. (See here, here, and here). In reality, McCain is conservative (the man surrounds himself with Neo-Cons for shit's sake). His infatuation stage with the Iraq War continues, he is against gay marriage and abortion, and he is so rich he doesn't know how many houses he has. If you don't think that's a Republican, wake up. Just because he did not support a Constitutional ban on gay marriage (which, in reality, is a Republican stance) and he has been willing every now and then to work across party lines, he is not a Republican?
So if the news outlets were wrong about McCain and the internal divisions within the Republican party (or the Neo-Cons who have hijacked it), why should we believe them about an internal division within the Democratic Party? Is there a division between the Obamas and the Clintons? Probably. Does that translate into a whole party rift? Probably not. Many people (even Ted Kennedy has passed the proverbial torch past the Clintons) see Obama not only as a better choice than Hillary, but also an eager, young face for the party. A fictitious rift not only keeps Obama's polls down and the race exciting, it also sells newspapers and garners viewers. This means more ad revenue for the networks and papers, which translates into more money for upper management. And you thought the Wu-Tang Clan's C.R.E.A.M. was just a song. Peace.
Photos - Television cameras at the DNC (www.nytimes.com), Obama and Hillary yucking it up (www.abc.net.au), Howard Dean bangs the gavel, starting the Democratic National Convention (www.cbsnews.com)
