Birds of a Feather

The more I am involved in local politics and neighborhood issues the more I am coming to realize that most people tend to seek out those who share their already held beliefs and look for reinforcement versus critical analysis. Have we become a country that is so entrenched in ideology that facts have become nonessential to rational discussion? My fear is that we have become a nation of intellectually lazy people who would rather have their news and facts spoon fed to them by the likes of Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. It appears that the more technology we incorporate into our society the less many of us read, study, and work to understand the nuisances of different issues. Instead of witnessing accurate and factual discussions we have become spectators to a drunken family brawl, where facts are replaced with family indignation.

To see evidence of this phenomenon one only has to look as far as the popularity of not just “news shows” that encourage cacophony versus discussion but also the daily blurring of the line between entertainment and news. So much of what we call news today is manufactured news designed to sell dog food. Regardless of what you feel about Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and their ilk they sell a lot of dog food. If you are able to garner an audience of 10-20% of 300 million people that makes you a player in this new world of newstainment. Facts are optional and if you misrepresent the truth you can always state that you have been given the ability to read minds and know the hearts of others. Remember, the goal is to sell dog food and once you accept that fact and you still rely on these “news outlets” to provide you with your information then you have gone beyond intellectual slothfulness and have graduated to dim-wittedness.

How many times have we been told by these news insiders that the public option was dead? How many times have we been told that President Obama was not tough enough, not engaged enough, not you “fill in the blank” enough? I am reminded of the news coverage of the past election and how we were led to believe that the election was always in doubt despite huge leads in the polls these pundits continued to tell us how it was too close to call. I wish I could say it is just the wingnuts who perpetrate this fraud on the American public, but all of the networks play this game. They are all in the business to sell dog food. Many people believe that television is about the shows and that the commercials are just the filler, the truth is that the shows are the filler and the commercials are why television was invented and maintained the way that it is. I say all this to say that I think much of our intellectual stupor has been supported by the wealthy and crafted by the media so that our population remains easy to govern and easily deceived.

Even politicians have become well schooled in the art of the sleight of hand. As these health care bills proceed toward passage watch how many of these anonymous small or unpopulated state politicians try to hold sway on the debate in an attempt to elevate their status and take advantage of their 15 minutes of fame.The latest contestant in the health care sweepstakes is Joe Lieberman that stalwart of independence that was all set to become John McCain’s running mate until the demographics proved that the day of two old white guys ruling America had died a fitting and long overdue death. Much has been made by the pundits and the “news outlets” concerning Mr. Lieberman’s intention to side with Republicans to filibuster a health care bill with a public option. Since the election when was the last time any of us have seen Joe Lieberman on primetime anything? He was close to making his “Dancing with the Stars” debut, but like a modern day Lazarus he continues to rise and be the gift that keeps on giving to the Democratic Party. Who among us that is not selling their prescription for Prozac on Craig’s list believes that Joe Lieberman is an Independent? But let no one be fooled, Joe Lieberman needs the Democrats and recognizes like the rest of us that the chances of the Republicans coming out of the wilderness anytime soon is like the proverbial snowball in hell. The Democratic Party and this administration have the keys to the city and will have them for some time to come, so while Connecticut maybe the epicenter for insurance companies, Joe Lieberman has to deliver more than 40 million new customers to the insurance lobby. So despite his proud display of Republican colors not even Lieberman wants to be the one man who blocked healthcare reform in America.

So cheer up folks, there will be healthcare reform this year. Will it be everything that progressives want? Of course not, but what troubles me the most about progressives is that sometimes they are as intellectually as lazy as wingnuts. If you study history and large scale legislation they were all begun with the foundation being laid and each subsequent Democratic majority has added to it to make it what it has become. The social security we have today is not the program created by Roosevelt. What is important here and must be different for real reform to take place is that there must be a solid foundation upon which future Congresses can build. By the time this debate is over there will be a number of no’s that will turn into yeses and more than a few birds whose feathers will change. And don’t forget to keep buying that dog food.

Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education. – Franklin D. Roosevelt
The Disputed Truth

Read more!

Machiavellian And The War of Words

For the past two weeks there has been a word that keeps cropping up in the talks of the Republican attack dogs and in the right leaning media types discussions of Senator Obama. I find it striking that so many of them have coincidently begun using the same word in the criticisms of the Senator. The reason that I think it is important to point out this coincidence is because they are actually code-speak for white males. The word that keeps cropping up is Machiavellian. I first heard it on CNN Newsroom last week when the anchor person was discussing Senator Obama’s speech at a church on Father’s Day and his call for black fathers to step up and become more involved in raising their children.

The reason this particular episode stuck out to me was that I was watching the show at my folk’s house and while they are fairly intelligent people they never attended college so they were never exposed to the book, “The Prince” by Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli; an Italian diplomat. For those who also may not be familiar with the author or the book, it is basically a story of how to gain and maintain political power through in many cases dubious and ruthless means. The gist of the story is that the ends justifies the means and in politics most all behavior is fair. My father asked me what did that word “Machiavellian” meant right after the announcer said it. Even though he didn’t know what it meant, he could tell that it wasn’t used in a complimentary manner.

In my explanation of the word and the history surrounding it I made the mistake of saying the author was French instead of Italian. I explained to them that basically it was a story of how one gains political power through devious means. My father then responded, “So he is saying don’t believe what Obama is saying because he is a ni**er?” I said not exactly but you could come away with that impression.

Machiavelli's best known book is The Prince, in which he describes the arts by which a Prince (a ruler) can retain control of his realm. He focuses primarily on what he calls the "new prince", under the assumption that a hereditary prince has an easier task since the people are accustomed to him. All a hereditary prince needs to do is carefully maintain the institutions that the people are used to; a new prince has a much more difficult task since he must stabilize his newfound power and build a structure that will endure. This task requires the Prince to be publicly above reproach but privately may require him to do immoral things in order to achieve his goals.[1]

This little incident in and of itself would not have caused me great alarm except as the week progressed I began to hear the term more and more in the same sentence with Senator Obama. It’s as if the talking points of the Republican attack machine for the week was this Machiavellian thing. It was being echoed across the airwaves. And then in today’s New York Times one of the chief Republican apologist op-ed columnist David Brooks is echoing the same tune. The code is not that Obama is black and therefore untrustworthy although there will be those who come away with that impression. No the code is far more nefarious than that, it is that he is in reality saying that he is for change, but the truth is that he is an ambitious black man who wants to tilt the table towards blacks. Thus reinforcing the fear of many angry white men who believe that this is the beginning of their losing their “rightful” place in America.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.[2]

In the discussion on CNN following the speech the announcer stated that though he could not speak to what was in Senator Obama’s heart, it was still his job to ask the question. I’m sorry but where in his job description or any reporters job description does it say that questioning the hearts of other men was part of their job duties? Would this same reporter ask the Pope if he truly believed in God? Of course not, but for some reason to question the faith of Senator Obama is fair game. What they are really saying is that he is not grounded in faith but in a selfish desire to rule and that he would use anything including God to accomplish this goal. As if God were a requirement for the office that he seeks. Where were these “faith checkers” during the Bush administration when Mr. Bush was proclaiming his faith and that Jesus was his role model while he sent young men and women to their deaths in a war that was not only unnecessary but based on lies?

SANCHEZ: But here's the question. This guy's there trying to sound or sounding or being sincere. I'm not getting into his heart. I'm not going to read what he's actually doing.

I guess the question to you as an analyst is: Is this really Barack Obama sharing something with him that's very real and very personal, or is this a politician taking a Machiavellian step to try and get voters he otherwise wouldn't get?[3]

SANCHEZ: Let's go now to the debut of Preston on politics. CNN political editor Mark Preston is joining us live.

Mark, let's do this. Let's talk first about the politics side of this faith angle. Listen, I don't want to sound jaded and some are going to criticize me for it, but I guess it's part of my job. So let me just ask you straight out.

He does this in an effort to cut into that sizable John McCain white male lead, doesn't he? I mean, this is a values play by Barack Obama. He says trust in the Lord. When was the last time you heard a Democrat in church using language like that?

MARK PRESTON, CNN POLITICAL EDITOR: It's a couple of different things there, Rick. First of all it is political. Everything Barack Obama does now until now November is political. Everything John McCain does from now until November is political. In the end, it's very unlikely Barack Obama is going to win a majority of these evangelical voters, these conservative evangelical voters.

But what they're looking for is they're trying to reach out and hit those moderate voters. Those moderate evangelicals who are fed up with the Republican Party.[4]

First Senator Obama catches hell for going to the wrong Church for 20 years, then he gets it for saying that he relies on faith in God when times get tough. As a Christian myself I can understand where he is coming from. There are times when all I can do to hang on and keep from going crazy in this world is to rely on my faith in God. There is a passage in the Bible that states,” To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.”[5] In other words if my heart is corrupt then I believe that everyone else’s is corrupt as well and I can justify my behavior no matter how despicable based on that belief.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavelli
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html?em&ex=1214280000&en=1c5f1b8c238d49d2&ei=5087%0A
[3] http://mediamatters.org/items/200806170009
[4] http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/15/cnr.03.html
[5] Titus 1:15

Read more!

The Secret Is The Question

The more I watch the news, the more incensed I become. It’s not the incessant blather about Brittany or the rock star status of Obama that troubles me, this is to be expected in a country that values entertainment more than knowledge. No, what is more frightening to me is how the debate in America is being framed by those who would have us stay ignorant of the facts and the real issues that we face as a nation. The way this is being done is nothing short of brilliant by the purveyors of dribble. The way you control the debate is not by being in command of the facts or even by being right. No, the way you control the debate is in the questions you ask. You control the answers by the questions you ask the interviewee. What troubles me is how so many of the “newsmakers” whether they are captains of industry, politicians, or sports and entertainment figures all play the game.

An example would be the infamous do you support the troops question or the why do you cheat on your wife. Both questions presuppose a given fact that has not been previously agreed to by the person answering the question, but by answering the loaded question you immediately agree with the premise. In other words if I say yes I support the troops, I am actually also saying yes I support the mission they are on and with the wife question I am saying yes I in fact do cheat on my wife. For an example of this technique in action, here is an interview between Wolf Blitzer of CNN and Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

BLITZER: The surge in Iraq, as it's called, General Petraeus' strategy, at least as far as U.S. casualties, Iraqi civilian casualties are concerned, seems to be paying off, seems to be working. Albeit the political progress is not where it should be with the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Are you prepared to concede, though, that if -- if the U.S. had done what you wanted six months ago or a year ago, simply start pulling out, there would have been no prospects of any sort of political resolutions, any political stability in Iraq?[1]

Notice how by the phrasing of the question Mr. Blitzer is trying to get the Governor to concede to facts that are not in evidence; that the surge is working. This is a common ploy by the corporate media to limit the debate to topics and issues they want discussed and to insert information they want disseminated instead of the real issues that need discussing. Many times the person being interviewed falls into this ploy, my question is do they do it out of ignorance or are they in concert with the person conducting the interview?

The following is how the Governor responded to the question and it is one of the reasons I have always liked and respected Governor Richardson.

RICHARDSON: There is no military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. This policy is flawed. It's not working.

Has there been any progress in political reconciliation in Iraq? No.
Has there been any progress in distributing oil revenues equally? No.

Have there been any regional elections? No.

Is the Iraqi government moving toward training their own people more effectively? No.

This is a quagmire.[2]

Governor Richardson refused to concede the embedded point that Wolf Blitzer is trying to make, by not doing so he is able to expose the fallacy in the position of Wolf Blitzer. Now to reinforce his point the Governor should have posed the question to Wolf Blitzer, what constitutes success? Until these types of questions are asked the media will continue to portray the “surge” as being a success and as a reason to continue the current Iraq policy. The goal is not to get us to sign off on the “100 year war”, the goal is to get us to continue to sign off year by year, until before you know it we’ve been there for 50 years. The way they hope to do it is the same way they have done for all of our other occupations, stabilization and pacifism. These blossoming democracies need our support.

It is time we as an informed public begin to expose these tricks for what they are and begin to ask the real questions of our politicians and our leaders. We are currently in an election cycle and now is the time to ask the questions that the corporate media are not asking. We must begin to hold the candidates feet to the fire and stop relying on promises and dreams. There are so many questions that are going unanswered because no one is asking them. Let’s start asking.

[1] http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0801/06/le.01.html
[2] http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0801/06/le.01.html

Read more!