Category Archives: Media

Ummm…Actually, It’s A Pagan Tree.

Posted on by

This week, Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee unintentionally angered Christians by announcing the lighting of a “holiday tree” in the Rhode Island State House. Fueled by Fox News Channel, a group of carolers interrupted the lighting ceremony by singing O Christmas Tree. They were quoted as saying that they felt Chafee was trying to put down Christianity.

Instead of singing, they should have picked up a history book or simply searched the subject on their computers.

Had they taken the time, they would have found that the display of an evergreen tree or an evergreen branch at this time of year actually originated as part of the Pagan celebration for the winter solstice. Indeed, many historians believe that early Christians even changed the celebration of Christ’s birth to coincide with the solstice to make it easier to attract converts to their fledgling religion.

The carolers also might have discovered that, in the Old Testament, there is a passage in which the prophet Jeremiah condemned the ancient Middle Eastern practice of bringing trees into the home as Pagan. Of course, that was centuries before Jesus was born.

In Early America, William Bradford, the Pilgrim’s second governor, tried to stamp out the practice of decorating trees at Christmas-time as “Pagan mockery”. It wasn’t until 1851, that a “Christmas tree” was placed in an American church by Cleveland Pastor Henry Schwan. Even then, he was condemned for resorting to a Pagan practice and threatened with harm.

My point is this: It’s all too easy for people to find offense at some perceived slight or disrespect. It’s much more difficult to seek tolerance and to search for true understanding. If the carolers had made the effort, they might have actually learned something about the history of their own faith. And they might have understood that Chafee was not attacking Christianity.  He was merely trying to include all of his constituents in the season’s festivities as his Republican predecessor had done.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The Republican Debates. TV’s Best Comedy Series.

Posted on by

If you haven’t been watching the seemingly endless number of Republican debates, you’ve been missing some great laughs. For humor, the debates have been every bit the equal of Dumb and Dumber, Beavis and Butthead, The Jerk, or Jackass 1-3.

The presumed eventual winner is Governor Mitt Romney who has been running for president almost as long as Harold Stassen. Yet he’s perpetually stuck in second place in virtually all of the polls. That’s because his support for a health care mandate as Massachussetts governor has put him at odds with the Teapublican hatred of so-called “socialist Obamacare.” He has, however, shown a unique skill of managing to find a position on every side of every issue.

One-time poll leader, Governor Rick Perry, was encouraged to run based on the mythic “Texas miracle.” As the myth goes, he created most of the jobs in America over the past 3 years. But the truth is, he used federal stimulus funds (which he now abhors) to create temporary minimum wage jobs without benefits. In case you’ve forgotten, he’s the man who advocated that Texas secede from the US. He’s also a serial executioner who has shown a disturbing fondness for maple syrup, and, if elected president, he wants to eliminate 3 federal agencies…assuming he can remember which ones.

Another outdated flavor-of-the-month candidate is Herman Cain, the accused serial sex offender and proud no-nothing on foreign policy and geography. He brags that his 9-9-9 tax policy is simple enough to be counted on the fingers of both his hands. Presumbably, the remaining middle finger is held erect for the poor and the middle class.  When asked the right question, he does a hilarious impersonation of a deer in the headlights.

Newt Gingrich is the shameless book peddler and hypocrite who led the impeachment effort against President Clinton while, himself, having an affair as his first wife was fighting cancer. No one describes Newt better than Congressman Barney Frank who calls him “a lobbyist and a liar,” a charge borne out by the revelation that Newt received $1.8 million from Freddie Mac as a lobbyist…er…consultant.

Sinking lower down the list, we come to Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann who made a fortune off agricultural subsidies from the federal government she claims to hate. The congresswoman has shown that she has no understanding of history, geography, foreign policy, economics or most anything else. She’s running, she says, because God told her to, which, if true, proves that God is a wrathful being who hates America.

Congressman Ron Paul is really a Libertarian. He hates the federal government he one day hopes to run, which is apparently the only reason he’s included in the Republican debates.

Congressman Rick Santorum? You don’t even need to listen to him to enjoy the good humor. The punch line to his joke is readily available on Google.

Finally, we come to former US Ambassador to China and former Utah Governor John Hunstman who seems rational, knowledgeable and moderate. Is it any wonder he’s running dead last in the Republican polls?

The Planned Destruction Of Our Two-Party System.

Posted on by

If you wanted to destroy the opposing political party – not just defeat it – what would you do?

You’d probably look to take away its source of funding while finding ways to dramatically increase yours, such as destroying labor unions while legalizing unlimited corporate contributions as “free speech.” You’d try to marginalize and delegitimize its leader by claiming he was not born in the US. You’d try to destroy its local organizers (ACORN). And knowing that most disputes will end up in court, you’d try to stack the courts with your own appointees while blocking the other party’s.

When the other party is in power, you’d try to block any attempts to improve the economy through filibusters. You’d try to destroy confidence in any media outlets that don’t support your point of view by eliminating the Fairness Doctrine and defunding public broadcasting. You’d try to eliminate as many regulations as possible, so when you regained power you could do whatever you want. And you’d try to destroy public confidence in a government run by the other party.

When your party is in power, you’d try to change the rules to favor your candidates. You’d try to redraw the congressional and legislative districts so you could get more candidates elected. And you’d try to suppress voting blocs that tend to vote for the other party’s candidates through voter suppression efforts such as those being pushed through Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Finally, to ensure your party’s future dominance, you’d try to control our schools so you could teach your own version of history and pseudoscience by rewriting textbooks such as those published in Texas.

If you think that I’m being paranoid, that these events are coincidental, or that both parties do the same things, you simply haven’t been paying attention.

Are We Now Officially Living In A Police State?

Posted on by

When the American public watched televised scenes of non-violent black marchers being attacked by baton-wielding police and their dogs in the 1950s south, the public’s disgust virtually assured the end of the Jim Crow era.

When students at Kent State University were shot by National Guard troops for demonstrating against the Vietnam War, public outrage made the end of the war inevitable.

So what are we to make of the general indifference our citizens have shown toward the police brutality at Occupy Wall Street demonstrations?

If you haven’t been paying attention, New York police have routinely emptied pepper spray containers in the faces of non-violent demonstrators before hauling them off to jail. During one example of police brutality, an Iraq veteran confronted officers by asking, “Why are you doing this? You are supposed to be serving our citizens.” He went on to explain that he was in the Military Police in Iraq, and the military never treated Iraqis this way.

On the other side of the country, witnesses say another Iraq veteran was critically injured by police as he was demonstrating against Wall Street and the 1%. The Oakland, California police claim they were merely breaking up the demonstration with the use of rubber bullets and tear gas canisters because of “unsafe sanitary conditions.”

In other words, we gassed and beat you to ensure your safety!

Despite these horrible incidents, most of our citizens (particularly Teapublicans) have reacted with a collective ho-hum. Why? Perhaps it’s because scenes of police abusing demonstrators have become common-place.

Our Constitution guarantees the right to assembly and free speech. Yet many in Congress, the media, and our increasingly militarized city police departments seem to have conveniently forgotten that.

Instead, they blame the protestors for police violence.

It’s time for all US citizens to look at the police violence and ask, “Is this the future of our country? Are we now willing to accept brutality from Kevlar helmeted police armed with tear gas, assault rifles and even tanks? Are we willing to concede that corporations have freedom of speech, but ordinary citizens do not? Is it okay for big corporate interests to bankrupt our economy, ask the government to bail them out then pay themselves millions in bonuses with taxpayer money? Are we okay with living in a police state?

And if the answers are yes, what can we expect in the future?  Scenes similar to the military crackdown in Syria? Threats by our own Gaddafis to kill protestors like rats? Or a US citizen blocking a column of US tanks in a futile attempt to stop a violent attack on peaceful protestors? Where does it stop?

Origins Of The Right’s Misplaced Hate Of Obama.

Posted on by

I confess that I’ve long been confused about the intense (and, I believe irrational) hatred of President Obama, when it appears to me that he has been guilty of nothing more than trying to correct the problems created by the previous administration.

Upon reflection, I believe it stems from the Right’s unfailing belief in the so-called “free” market.

When the economy, led by the housing market and a lack of common-sense regulations, careened off a cliff in late 2008, the Bush administration recommended a bill to Congress that called for the US to spend billions in order to prop up the failing banks. Lacking the support of Republican leaders in Congress, the measure initially failed. But when the stock markets crashed as a result, enough Congressmen were persuaded to change their votes and the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) went into effect.

The program ultimately stabilized the markets and the economy enough to prevent the Great Recession from turning into a second Great Depresssion. Yet many Republicans were furious. They believed TARP to be a government intrusion into the infallibility of free market principles. When President Obama subsequently offered government-backed loans to General Motors and Chrysler in order to stave off the collapse of the American automobile industry, the free market Republicans and Libertarians went ballistic.

Capitalizing on an idea by a Republican strategist, groups such as the Koch-funded American FreedomWorks spent millions to rally free market believers to protest. They labeled the movement a modern day Tea Party. It turned out to be the perfect way to inspire the Republican base which was dispirited following the 2008 elections.

Teapublicans deluded themselves into believing that the Great Recession was not the fault of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act or the Bush administration’s lax oversight of the financial industry.

They focused, instead, on President Obama’s attempts to fend off an economic Armegeddon. In addition, they convinced themselves that the national debt, which had doubled under President Bush, was now the fault of President Obama. They believed the auto bail-outs and economic stimulus were evidence that the administration was moving toward socialism. The President’s eventual signing of a bill to reform the out-of-control healthcare system added even more fuel to the torches being carried by the Tea Party.

When viewed in context, the Teapublican fears seem irrational. But when viewed through a partisan lens and slavish devotion to free market principles, regardless of their consequences, the fears are understandable, if not logical.

Moreover, this helps to explain why so many lower and middle class Americans vote against their self-interest by supporting Republican candidates determined to transfer wealth upward through tax breaks for the wealthy.

Over many years of listening to Fox News pundits and Rush-to-the-table Limbaugh, these people have become convinced that all of their problems will be solved if only we rid ourselves of government intrusion and allow Teapublican leaders to work their free market magic. Indeed, these voters are likely convinced that the only thing standing between them and unimagined riches are evil Democrats, who in their Teapublican minds, are trying to replace capitalism with socialism, or worse yet, communism or fascism.

Never mind that many of these people don’t have a clue of what any of these “isms” actually mean. Hence the Tea Party signs that read “Keep your government hands off my Medicare.”

Teapublican Lie #20.

Posted on by

“Teabaggers are patriots. Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are misguided thugs and revolutionaries.”

The Tea Party claimed to be a grassroots movement, but in reality, it was created by Republican strategists, financed by Republican think tanks and billionaires, and promoted and publicized by Fox News Channel, Rush-To-Judgement Limbaugh and the rest of the Republican megaphones.

The Occupy Wall Street movement, on the other hand, receives no money from millionaires and billionaires. It has no think tanks to fund it. And it has no media organizations under its control. The movement was created by a diverse group of young people fed up with the wealthy who control Congress and dictate public policy. And it’s growing.

So why are the Teapublicans now dismissing them as out-of-control rabble? Why are Teapublicans portraying them as dangerous and disrespectful? And why are Teapublicans saying “they ought to get a job?” Actually, that’s the question at the very heart of the movement. The Occupy Wall Streeters want to get a job, but feel that Teapublican policies dictated by the wealthy prevent them from any chance of success.

Instead of trying to initiate legislation that might create jobs to make the Occupy Wall Streeters go home, Teapublicans would rather spend their time denying tax hikes for millionaires and billionaires. And they are using their media megaphones to portray the movement as dangerous. On his daily radio diatribe, Glenn Beck even said, “They’re coming to kill you!”

Hmmm…think about it for a moment. Which group brought guns to their rallies and carried signs with overt threats against Congress and the President? Here’s a hint: It wasn’t the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators.

Another Dickish Demand.

Posted on by

Will Richard, The Dick, Cheney never take the hint and just fade into retirement?

Previous former presidents and vice presidents retired to their compounds surrounded by Secret Service (such as George W. Bush) or devoted themselves to humanitarian causes (such as Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton).  Former vice-president and presidential election winner, Al Gore, has occupied his time by trying to convince Teapublicans that science exists. 

On the other hand, The Dick keeps elbowing his way onto cable TV to push his particular brand of hate and meanness. His most recent such foray was on CNN’s State of the Union, where he said that President Obama owes the Bush administration an apology.

An apology? For what? For cleaning up the two unfunded wars started by The Dick and his puppet Bush? For cleaning up the economic disaster left behind? For cleaning up the oil and financial industries run wild? For trying to restore our nation’s stature in the world after years of violating the Geneva Conventions? For finally tracking down the leaders of Al-Qaeda?

No, according to The Dick, President Obama should take back his criticism of the Bush administration’s tactics in the war on terrorism. More specifically, The Dick wants President Obama to take back statements from his 2009 speech in Cairo, in which he said the trauma of 9/11 caused America to “act contrary to our ideals.”

It appears The Dick had his feelings hurt (yeah, I know, it’s hard to imagine that he of the bionic heart has feelings) when President Obama denounced The Dick’s “enhanced interrogation” as torture. Of course, The Dick’s waterboarding technique is specifically defined as torture by the Geneva Conventions. But, despite that inconvenient truth, The Dick claims, “We were never torturing anyone in the first place. He (Obama) said we walked away from our basic fundamental ideals. That simply wasn’t the case.”

Even The Dick’s daughter piled on the current President. “He slandered the nation,” said Liz Cheney, “and I think he owes an apology to the American people.”

Proving that you don’t have to be male to be a Dick.

Teapublican Lie #17.

Posted on by

“The federal government paid $16 each for muffins.”

Last week, Teapublican megaphone, Fox News Channel, reverberated with charges that the Department of Justice purchased muffins at $16 apiece at law enforcement conferences in Denver, Colorado.

It was a sensational story.

Teapublican bully and buffoon, Bill O’Reilly used the story to excuse the fact that he and other millionaires pay lower taxes than the middle class. In his interview on The Daily Show, he said he wouldn’t mind paying a little more taxes. But only when the federal government gets spending under control and stops wasting his money on things like $16 muffins. The only problem is that, as usual, O’Reilly is wrong.

According to Hilton Hotels where the law enforcement conferences were held, the $16 charge was actually for a full continental breakfast plus tax. Hardly the extravagant waste of taxpayer money that Fox claimed. And, of course, the alleged transgressions occurred during both the Bush and Obama administrations. (But Teapublicans conveniently ignored that fact.)

And before you make the claim that the cost is still unjustified, consider this. A large part of business and government work consists of meetings, and employees need to eat – even government employees. Additionally, $16 is hardly an outrageous sum for a meal. Have you ever ordered breakfast in a New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco or Washington, DC hotel? Compared to those prices, $16 for breakfast is a steal.

Of course, you’re not likely to hear the truth about “Muffingate” on Fox News Channel. But that should come as no surprise. Fox News Channel seldom tells the truth about anything.

Who Really Cares About Weiner’s Wiener?

Posted on by

Okay, enough already! We all know Congressman Anthony Weiner did something dumb and distasteful. But enough is enough! Yes, he tweeted pictures of the little wiener to a few adult women on Twitter. Yes, he got married after the exchanges began. And, yes, he lied about his indiscretion after Republican hit man, Andrew Breitbart (purveyor of false claims against ACORN, Planned Parenthood and Shirley Sherrod), made the photos pubic…er, public.

But for more than a week, the Weiner story has dominated the news. The story has pushed aside debates over the federal debt limit, Medicare, and jobs programs. Can you for a moment imagine Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Eric Sevareid and David Brinkley reporting this story daily?

Where is the media’s sense of fairness and proportionality?

What Congressman Weiner did was show his body to a few women in what is supposed to be a private medium. He didn’t distribute the photos to the masses (Mr. Dumbart and the media did that). He didn’t have a physical relationship with those women. And though he may have intellectually cheated on his wife, he didn’t have a physical affair (as former Republican Senator John Ensign did). He didn’t hire prostitutes (as current Republican Congressman David Vitter did). He didn’t use the Internet to solicit sex (as former Republican Congressman Christopher Lee did). He didn’t dump his wife as she was fighting cancer (as former Democratic Senator John Edwards and former Republican Congressman Newt Gingrich did). And though Congressman Weiner lied to cover the truth, he didn’t have his mother write a $96,000 check as a bribe for silence (as former Republican Senator John Ensign has been accused of doing).

Yes, Congressman Weiner’s actions constitute a legitimate news story or two. But more than a week? It’s as if Lindsay Lohan had just been elected to Congress!

With the exception of media coverage of John Edwards, stories of indiscretions of all the other ethically-challenged elected officials combined haven’t equaled the media attention of Weiner’s wiener. And when is the last time you saw a story of Congressional corruption receive this kind of coverage?

One has to ask the question, Why? Does the public really regard the Congress-man’s behavior as that egregious? (According to polls in the Congressman’s district, the answer appears to be no.) Was his behavior worse than the aforementioned perpetrators’? (The answer has to be that cybersex between adult individuals does not rise to the level of actually breaking the law or physically cheating on one’s spouse.)

So why the non-stop media frenzy? I submit that the lazy and sensation-driven media have, once again, been manipulated by Breitbart and Fox News Channel. And in their rush for damage control, Democratic leaders have, once again, fallen into the conservatives’ trap by piling on with their own calls for Weiner’s resignation.

To put an end to the story, Congressman Weiner should tell the media that he will announce his resignation the day after Congressman Vitter resigns and after both Democratic leaders and sanctimonious Republicans censure all of those who have done worse.

That ought to shut them up.

What Happened To Journalism?

Posted on by

No recent event has better exemplified the utter collapse of journalism in the U.S. than coverage of President Obama’s speech on the Middle East. The headlines following the speech all reported the “outrage” of Republicans, the Jewish community, etc. as the result of the President’s statement that a return to the pre-1967 borders is a condition for peace.

There was only problem with those news stories. The President’s statement wasn’t news. The U.S. position on peace talks has always been based on the pre-1967 borders!

Now you may ask, how could the media be so wrong? In a word, laziness. A few minutes searching for the truth would have yielded information that would have led to a more accurate interpretation. But none of the media seem concerned with reporting the truth. They seem much more interested in reporting controversy and reactions from the President’s political opponents. In other words, they’re willing to sacrifice the truth for a bunch of irrelevant “facts.”

However, one news source did report the story correctly – Real Time with Bill Maher.

So this is what journalism has come to? A comedian provided a more accurate report on a major policy speech than established news organizations! Small wonder that some surveys have listed another comedian, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, as America’s most trusted newsman.