"If ballots don't work, bullets will" was shouted by Joyce Kaufman, former Chief of Staff to Republican Representative Allen West, in her speech to the crowd at a Tea Party rally.
It a sad time in America when this anti-American statement and hundreds more like it are not met with widespread and immediate condemnation.
The media likes to portray this issue by reporting both "sides" in a political he-said, she-said style with no real analysis, and certainly no indication of the truthiness of either position.
"False equivalence" in this case refers to the often heard claim in the media that everyone is equally guilty of inciting and dangerous rhetoric. It is a false equivalence because the inciting and dangerous rhetoric comes predominantly from the right-wing of the political spectrum, and not equally from both "sides".
The reality is that Democrats and liberals will reflect on their speech and rhetoric, but Republicans, tea partiers and the right-wing TV & radio shockers will not. Already we have seen the right-wing defend their past inflammatory rhetoric and insist that they will continue it. So the call to "tone it down" will only be heard by those who don't really need to hear it, and ignored by those who really do need to tone it down.
Everyone is NOT equally guilty of inciting and inflammatory rhetoric. But we all have a responsibility to work against it.
In the end, the two "sides" are really those who support open democracy and American principles, and those who agitate against these ideals. The underlying principle of democracy is that we can make the best decisions for the many, without resorting to violence to achieve selfish and narrow political objectives.
If there is one thing that should unite all of us as Americans it's that the vote is the foundation of our democracy. The idea that bullets should ever - ever - be more powerful in our democracy than our votes is something we can all unite against.
So the answer from all Americans to Joyce Kaufman and people like her is: No, bullets will not work. Ballots will.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Monday, December 13, 2010
President Obama Was Right to Cut a Deal
For 23 1/2 months Congress has failed to act on the expiring tax cuts. President Obama stepped in and provided some desperately needed leadership, and now the Democrats are all ready to fight...Obama?
Do you really think Congress can do in 2 weeks what it utterly failed to do in 23 1/2 months?
You can't say President Obama caved without recognizing that the Democratically held Congress has caved for almost 2 years. And now, at the eleventh hour, they think they can get a better deal. But they have put forward no bills either before of after Obama's negotiation with the Republicans.
President Obama was right to cut a deal. The reasoning he gave in his speech was pragmatic and made good sense.
Obama's deal will put food on the table for the unemployed. Tax cuts will pump billions into the economy just when we need it most. That money, if collected as tax, would never be allowed into the economy by the Republicans. The best way to get money to the middle class to spend it is to not collect it in the first place.
It's true that we liberals and progressives didn't feel like it was a "win" because Obama and other Democrats didn't "sell it". I think that this could have been framed more competently to make us feel victorious while doing the right thing. This is not a new issue; it has been a perennial problem for Democrats.
Democrats should not be disappointed with Obama for stepping in at the last minute to do something that the Democrats in Congress utterly failed to do for the 2 years they held both Houses of Congress.
Some of the Democrats in both the House and the Senate were actually in Congress to vote on the original Bush Tax Cuts in 2001. When were they planning to act? They waited 9 years, 11 months and 14 days before decrying the President for dealing with the issue at the last possible moment - while Democrats still held both Houses.
Democratic enthusiasm for a better tax plan is just too little, WAY too late. This should have been a priority a year ago.
Obama did the right thing. We should do the right thing and support him.
Do you really think Congress can do in 2 weeks what it utterly failed to do in 23 1/2 months?
You can't say President Obama caved without recognizing that the Democratically held Congress has caved for almost 2 years. And now, at the eleventh hour, they think they can get a better deal. But they have put forward no bills either before of after Obama's negotiation with the Republicans.
President Obama was right to cut a deal. The reasoning he gave in his speech was pragmatic and made good sense.
Obama's deal will put food on the table for the unemployed. Tax cuts will pump billions into the economy just when we need it most. That money, if collected as tax, would never be allowed into the economy by the Republicans. The best way to get money to the middle class to spend it is to not collect it in the first place.
It's true that we liberals and progressives didn't feel like it was a "win" because Obama and other Democrats didn't "sell it". I think that this could have been framed more competently to make us feel victorious while doing the right thing. This is not a new issue; it has been a perennial problem for Democrats.
Democrats should not be disappointed with Obama for stepping in at the last minute to do something that the Democrats in Congress utterly failed to do for the 2 years they held both Houses of Congress.
Some of the Democrats in both the House and the Senate were actually in Congress to vote on the original Bush Tax Cuts in 2001. When were they planning to act? They waited 9 years, 11 months and 14 days before decrying the President for dealing with the issue at the last possible moment - while Democrats still held both Houses.
Democratic enthusiasm for a better tax plan is just too little, WAY too late. This should have been a priority a year ago.
Obama did the right thing. We should do the right thing and support him.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Midterm Election 2010: Another Unreported Headline
The "Southern Strategy" was applied nationally, and it worked.
The Republicans used a national campaign this election season. The Southern strategy is a common strategy employed by the Republicans in the southern states, and it works in those states.
The Southern Strategy is the strategy that uses covert and overt racism to stir up fear and anger among white voters to get them to vote Republican and to turn them out in larger numbers. The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, not only admitted that this strategy was used with success, he specifically apologized to the country on behalf of the Republican Party for using the Southern Strategy because it was wrong.
In this midterm election, the Southern Strategy was applied on a national level and it worked in both northern and southern states. The result of this covert and overt race baiting was that the Republicans have the majority seats in the House of Representatives in Congress.
So the question now is: Will the racist campaign strategy turn into a governing strategy?
The Republicans used a national campaign this election season. The Southern strategy is a common strategy employed by the Republicans in the southern states, and it works in those states.
The Southern Strategy is the strategy that uses covert and overt racism to stir up fear and anger among white voters to get them to vote Republican and to turn them out in larger numbers. The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, not only admitted that this strategy was used with success, he specifically apologized to the country on behalf of the Republican Party for using the Southern Strategy because it was wrong.
In this midterm election, the Southern Strategy was applied on a national level and it worked in both northern and southern states. The result of this covert and overt race baiting was that the Republicans have the majority seats in the House of Representatives in Congress.
So the question now is: Will the racist campaign strategy turn into a governing strategy?
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Midterm Election 2010: The Unreported Headlines
Democrats won the Senate.
There were enough seats up for grabs in this midterm election in both houses of Congress so that either party could gain control of the Senate or the House. The Republicans won control of the House, and the Democrats won control of the Senate. So why does the "mainstream media" frame it as a "win" only for the Republicans?
This is a perfect example of how the "mainstream media" weaves its Conservative bias into the news.
The headline we see is "America Has Spoken: Republicans Win The House"
The Republicans won enough seats in this election to be in the majority in the House. Therefore, Republicans won the House. The Democrats won enough seats in this election to be in the majority in the Senate. Therefore, Democrats won the Senate.
But you won't see it reported that way. Not on CBS, NBC, CNN, not anywhere. Why isn't there a headline that says "America Has Spoken: Democrats Win The Senate"? It's because it doesn't fit with the "mainstream" media's Conservative narrative.
What did America say, and what did the media hear?
Because the Republicans are now in control of the House, everyone is saying "America has spoken". Didn't America speak just as loudly when we voted the Democrats to be in control of the Senate? Or when Obama was elected President? These Democrats were also elected by a majority of American voters.
Democrats were elected to control half of the Legislative Branch in the Senate, and there is a Democratic President presiding over the Executive Branch of our government. Republicans control only one half of the Legislative Branch. For those of you keeping score, that's one and one half branches for the Democrats, and only one-half of a branch for Republicans. That equals a 3 to 1 'branch ratio' favoring the Democrats.
The "mainstream" media narrative is detached from the reality of mainstream America. On the whole, America is still telling Democrats "Keep going!"
Monday, October 25, 2010
Anti-Washington Vs. Anti-America
This election has literally become very negative. The winners will be determined by which "anti-" sentiment gets the most people out to vote. Voters fall into one of the two Anti movement groups: the Anti-Washington group and the Anti-American group.
The anti-Washington movement is fueled by anti-government sentiment.
The Anti-Washington group is essentially against the Democrats. They are the party in power, so they are the party that is blamed for the problems that we are facing as a nation right now, as well as some problems that are entirely made up by or for the media's consumption. The Democrats are in charge, so therefore they are the "Washington insiders" who have either succeeded or failed, depending on which media narrative you are following.
The Anti-America group manifests itself as the Republican Tea Party. They are so determined to have Obama fail that they are willing to have America fail to do it. They want to take Obama down by taking America down.
The Republican Tea Partiers often claim to be defending the Constitution. But they hypocritically proclaim they want to change the Constitution. As the self-proclaimed defenders of the Constitution, they really mean they want to defend only selected parts of it. They skip over the First Amendment, which creates the separation of church and state, because they believe the founding fathers would have wanted the commingling of religion and government. They conveniently ignore decades of legal precedent. They also ignore the fact that the founding fathers really did oppose the commingling of church and state, and that's precisely why they wrote the 1st Amendment! Teabaggers instead focus mostly on defending the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms because that one is supposedly under attack.
Republicans have said they don't like the 17th Amendment. They are against the election of U.S. Senators by the voters. That is a pretty Anti-American idea. They also want to change the 14th Amendment; specifically, they want to change the part that makes everyone who is born here a U.S. citizen. I think it is important to point out that this is the way that ALL natural born Americans became U.S. citizens. In other words, the vast majority of Republican Tea Partiers became citizens through the 14th Amendment - but they want to change it. How much more Anti-American can you get than to be against the Constitution? Read on.
Republicans in the Senate rail against the lack of job creation by the government, but have voted against every measure to create jobs. They voted against safeguards that would prevent our economy from crashing again. And they voted against making oil drilling off our coast safer. They vote against everything that is good for America. On every issue, Republicans have taken a hard-line Anti-American stance. They are willing to scuttle America for the sake of giving the wealthiest people in the world (not just Americans) an even greater portion of America's wealth. They block every effort by Democrats to build America up. Then they fill the media with their convoluted spin that somehow they are "doing America good."
The prevailing Republican attitude is "Either you give us all of the money and power, or we'll take America down!" Taking America hostage is as Anti-American you can get.
There are two kinds of people in America: those who want to take Obama down by taking America down, and those who want to build America up.
.
The anti-Washington movement is fueled by anti-government sentiment.
The Anti-Washington group is essentially against the Democrats. They are the party in power, so they are the party that is blamed for the problems that we are facing as a nation right now, as well as some problems that are entirely made up by or for the media's consumption. The Democrats are in charge, so therefore they are the "Washington insiders" who have either succeeded or failed, depending on which media narrative you are following.
The Anti-America group manifests itself as the Republican Tea Party. They are so determined to have Obama fail that they are willing to have America fail to do it. They want to take Obama down by taking America down.
The Republican Tea Partiers often claim to be defending the Constitution. But they hypocritically proclaim they want to change the Constitution. As the self-proclaimed defenders of the Constitution, they really mean they want to defend only selected parts of it. They skip over the First Amendment, which creates the separation of church and state, because they believe the founding fathers would have wanted the commingling of religion and government. They conveniently ignore decades of legal precedent. They also ignore the fact that the founding fathers really did oppose the commingling of church and state, and that's precisely why they wrote the 1st Amendment! Teabaggers instead focus mostly on defending the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms because that one is supposedly under attack.
Republicans have said they don't like the 17th Amendment. They are against the election of U.S. Senators by the voters. That is a pretty Anti-American idea. They also want to change the 14th Amendment; specifically, they want to change the part that makes everyone who is born here a U.S. citizen. I think it is important to point out that this is the way that ALL natural born Americans became U.S. citizens. In other words, the vast majority of Republican Tea Partiers became citizens through the 14th Amendment - but they want to change it. How much more Anti-American can you get than to be against the Constitution? Read on.
Republicans in the Senate rail against the lack of job creation by the government, but have voted against every measure to create jobs. They voted against safeguards that would prevent our economy from crashing again. And they voted against making oil drilling off our coast safer. They vote against everything that is good for America. On every issue, Republicans have taken a hard-line Anti-American stance. They are willing to scuttle America for the sake of giving the wealthiest people in the world (not just Americans) an even greater portion of America's wealth. They block every effort by Democrats to build America up. Then they fill the media with their convoluted spin that somehow they are "doing America good."
The prevailing Republican attitude is "Either you give us all of the money and power, or we'll take America down!" Taking America hostage is as Anti-American you can get.
There are two kinds of people in America: those who want to take Obama down by taking America down, and those who want to build America up.
.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Conservative Political Activism On Supreme Court Threatens Democracy
The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court is naked Conservative political activism which opens the floodgates for unlimited campaign funding by multi-national corporations. The judicial activism of the high court breaks down the last barrier which has held back for decades the disproportionate influence by the richest few over our democracy.
It turns American democracy into the same system that is used for shareholders who own stock in a company. In that system, you are able to "vote your shares", which means those who have the most dollars invested in the company get the most votes.
With unlimited amounts of money flowing into the political election process, elections and seats in government can be bought and sold like commodities. This is far different than what the founders created, a system that was "one man, one vote", not "one dollar, one vote".
The Conservative activism of the court created something that is simply not found anywhere in the Constitution. The hyper-reactionary court majority dominated by Roberts and Scalia have created a "self-destruct" button for our Democratic system. It changes America from a democracy to an aristocracy made up of the rich and the largest multinational corporations that drowns out the voices of 99% of Americans with unlimited political cash.
The court itself is dominated by the same political payback system that the rich and the Republican party have been cultivating for decades in both the executive and legislative branches.
Acting alone, the activism of the conservatives on the court would not succeed. Eventually the voters would check the radical power grab by the court. However, the conservative bias of the mainstream media, and the outright conservative propaganda of media such as FOX, ensures that American voters are left unaware of this threat to our democratic system of governance.
The Supreme Court's radical decisions also open American democracy to threats from other countries. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been actively soliciting donations from foreign corporations and governments to fund attack ads against Democratic political candidates. These attack ads smear those candidates who fight the outsourcing of American jobs to those same countries that benefit from receiving the jobs. And the circle of money is completed.
The media is mute despite the polls that show over 80% of Americans are against outsourcing of jobs overseas. The mainstream media is adept at displaying it's strong conservative bias by poorly reporting, or not reporting at all, important populist issues - even issues that threaten to end our great American experiment in democracy.
The Citizens United decision makes the American voter the low bidder in the auctioning off of American democracy.
/
It turns American democracy into the same system that is used for shareholders who own stock in a company. In that system, you are able to "vote your shares", which means those who have the most dollars invested in the company get the most votes.
With unlimited amounts of money flowing into the political election process, elections and seats in government can be bought and sold like commodities. This is far different than what the founders created, a system that was "one man, one vote", not "one dollar, one vote".
The Conservative activism of the court created something that is simply not found anywhere in the Constitution. The hyper-reactionary court majority dominated by Roberts and Scalia have created a "self-destruct" button for our Democratic system. It changes America from a democracy to an aristocracy made up of the rich and the largest multinational corporations that drowns out the voices of 99% of Americans with unlimited political cash.
The court itself is dominated by the same political payback system that the rich and the Republican party have been cultivating for decades in both the executive and legislative branches.
Acting alone, the activism of the conservatives on the court would not succeed. Eventually the voters would check the radical power grab by the court. However, the conservative bias of the mainstream media, and the outright conservative propaganda of media such as FOX, ensures that American voters are left unaware of this threat to our democratic system of governance.
The Supreme Court's radical decisions also open American democracy to threats from other countries. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been actively soliciting donations from foreign corporations and governments to fund attack ads against Democratic political candidates. These attack ads smear those candidates who fight the outsourcing of American jobs to those same countries that benefit from receiving the jobs. And the circle of money is completed.
The media is mute despite the polls that show over 80% of Americans are against outsourcing of jobs overseas. The mainstream media is adept at displaying it's strong conservative bias by poorly reporting, or not reporting at all, important populist issues - even issues that threaten to end our great American experiment in democracy.
The Citizens United decision makes the American voter the low bidder in the auctioning off of American democracy.
/
Friday, October 8, 2010
One Nation Rally Didn't Fit the Media's Narrative
Perspectives From The Ground
A lot has been said and written by those who obviously had no first hand knowledge of the event to share. As someone who was actually there, I decided to give a much needed accurate account.
The mainstream media was very conservative - and not just in its reporting. They all hid in one corner of the National Mall, on the North side near the stage. They seemed very condescending and not very interested in covering the event. They acted like they drew the short straw by getting the assignment to be there. I really don't think they did a very good job covering the event. They didn't go out into the crowd, and they left early.
Which means they missed a lot. One thing they missed was the energy and diversity of the crowd. They missed the positive attitude, the patriotism, the willingness to work to make America a better place for everyone. They missed it because they didn't want to contradict their narrative. It's fair to say the media was generally hostile toward the event.
One thing that is always brought up is how many people attended. So considering that I was actually there at the One Nation rally, and not seeing it through the filter of the "news", I can tell you it was a phenomenal turnout. It was packed!
An important point that the media missed completely when determining the turnout was that the crowd was fluid. Many participants had to leave while many others were still coming into the rally. The total number of people at any given moment was much smaller than the total number of people who actually participated throughout the day. Throngs of people streamed into the rally continuously throughout the late morning and afternoon. That means a snapshot of the crowd at noon did not get an accurate picture of the sheer volume of people who participated in the rally throughout the course of the day.
We also didn't have 2 of the richest Billionaires in the world underwriting our rally and providing free travel as was done with the Beck's "Distorting Honor" rally. The One Nation rally was supported by hard earned dollars from individual worker's paychecks. It was supported by real Americans, for real Americans.
How many unemployed people would you expect to have the money to travel across the country to rally in Washington DC? They are too busy looking for work, doing odd jobs, and trying to feed their families. How can we expect the poorest among us to protest what the Republicans have done to them, using what little of their own money the Republicans let them keep?
The mainstream media showed an incredible conservative bias in their reporting of the event. They weren't there to cover the news. They were only there to support their narrative.
When the media did bother to make a token effort, they asked if the rally was being unfriendly toward Republicans. The reply was "When Republicans work against the interests of the American people, we are against that. When Republicans use the government to make the richest among us even richer at the expense of the American workers, we are against that. When Republicans use racial and religious intolerance to divide us, we are against that. But this rally is not about dividing, it's about joining together. We encourage the Republicans to join us in making the economy stronger, in helping real Americans get decent jobs. We welcome the Republicans to join with us in making America strong again!"
Somehow the mainstream media failed to report that. It just didn't fit their narrative.
So if you hear that the One Nation march was not a big deal, you can know that you are listening to someone who wasn't actually there.
I was there. And it was a big deal. In the words of our Vice-President, it was a "BIG f-ing deal!"
A lot has been said and written by those who obviously had no first hand knowledge of the event to share. As someone who was actually there, I decided to give a much needed accurate account.
The mainstream media was very conservative - and not just in its reporting. They all hid in one corner of the National Mall, on the North side near the stage. They seemed very condescending and not very interested in covering the event. They acted like they drew the short straw by getting the assignment to be there. I really don't think they did a very good job covering the event. They didn't go out into the crowd, and they left early.
Which means they missed a lot. One thing they missed was the energy and diversity of the crowd. They missed the positive attitude, the patriotism, the willingness to work to make America a better place for everyone. They missed it because they didn't want to contradict their narrative. It's fair to say the media was generally hostile toward the event.
One thing that is always brought up is how many people attended. So considering that I was actually there at the One Nation rally, and not seeing it through the filter of the "news", I can tell you it was a phenomenal turnout. It was packed!
An important point that the media missed completely when determining the turnout was that the crowd was fluid. Many participants had to leave while many others were still coming into the rally. The total number of people at any given moment was much smaller than the total number of people who actually participated throughout the day. Throngs of people streamed into the rally continuously throughout the late morning and afternoon. That means a snapshot of the crowd at noon did not get an accurate picture of the sheer volume of people who participated in the rally throughout the course of the day.
We also didn't have 2 of the richest Billionaires in the world underwriting our rally and providing free travel as was done with the Beck's "Distorting Honor" rally. The One Nation rally was supported by hard earned dollars from individual worker's paychecks. It was supported by real Americans, for real Americans.
How many unemployed people would you expect to have the money to travel across the country to rally in Washington DC? They are too busy looking for work, doing odd jobs, and trying to feed their families. How can we expect the poorest among us to protest what the Republicans have done to them, using what little of their own money the Republicans let them keep?
The mainstream media showed an incredible conservative bias in their reporting of the event. They weren't there to cover the news. They were only there to support their narrative.
When the media did bother to make a token effort, they asked if the rally was being unfriendly toward Republicans. The reply was "When Republicans work against the interests of the American people, we are against that. When Republicans use the government to make the richest among us even richer at the expense of the American workers, we are against that. When Republicans use racial and religious intolerance to divide us, we are against that. But this rally is not about dividing, it's about joining together. We encourage the Republicans to join us in making the economy stronger, in helping real Americans get decent jobs. We welcome the Republicans to join with us in making America strong again!"
Somehow the mainstream media failed to report that. It just didn't fit their narrative.
So if you hear that the One Nation march was not a big deal, you can know that you are listening to someone who wasn't actually there.
I was there. And it was a big deal. In the words of our Vice-President, it was a "BIG f-ing deal!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
