Teapublican Lie #20.

“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.

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.

“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?

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?

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.

Left Without A Voice.

Last Friday, Keith Olbermann announced that he and MSNBC had decided to end Countdown.  As a result, progressives have lost their strongest voice.  Although MSNBC will continue to feature commentators such as Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnell and Chris Matthews, none of them, with the possible exception of Schultz, are fire-breathing liberals.

That means there is no longer anyone in the media to offset the hateful rantings of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, etc., etc., etc.

It’s a sad day for progressives and for fairness in media.

What’s Wrong With Calling For Civility?

Following the Tucson shooting, Pima County Sheriff Dupnik stirred up the proverbial hornet’s nest by suggesting that our rancorous political climate may have contributed to the violence.  And his statements about Arizona’s insane gun laws fueled even more anger from the right.

How dare the good Sheriff ask for more civility in our public discourse!  How dare he try to keep guns away from the mentally unstable or even the deranged!

Never once did he point fingers at a particular party or individual politicians and radio hosts.  Yet following his statements on national TV, right wing radio hosts and right wing politicians went on the attack.

Certainly the right wingers were not responsible for the shooting.  Still, Sheriff Dupnik made some valid points.  Statements such as Sharron Angle’s threat of “2nd Amendment remedies” and “taking out” Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid most definitely could inspire another unblanced individual to act.  Tea Party members carrying guns to Presidential appearances can only be viewed as a threat of violence to President Obama.  Tea Party  signs reading “Next time, we’ll come armed” can only be seen as a threat to elected officials.  And maps of Congressional districts in the crosshairs of a gunsight most certainly present a violent image.

But right wingers claim that the violent implication of these statements and images is a misinterpretation of their intent; a fabrication by the left.  For example, Rush Limbaugh said that liberals were the ones truly responsible for the Tucson shooting.  Half-term Governor Palin defended her Mama Grizzly approach to politics by claiming she and other right wingers are the victims of “blood libel.”  Even The Arizona Republic got into the act by printing an editorial calling for Sheriff Dupnik to “remember his duty” and “to recall that he is elected to be a lawman.”

In other words, right wingers have the right to state opinions in any manner they please.  But if someone on the left takes issue with those opinions, they should remember their place and shut up.

Meanwhile, how have political commentators on the left responded?  Have they displayed similar angst at the suggestion their discourse may have contributed to the shooting (despite the fact that they’ve never encouraged violence)?  No.  Instead of defending themselves, they seem to have taken the Sheriff’s suggestion to heart.  Indeed, Keith Olbermann has announced that he will be acutely aware of language from now on.  He’s even stated that he is dropping his show’s segment “World’s Worst Persons.”

The difference in reaction couldn’t be more revealing.  Either the right is feeling some sense of shame and guilt over the Sheriff’s comments.  Or they are so determined to win at all costs, they simply don’t care if their actions and words lead to more senseless violence.

Personally, I’m betting both of those motives are true.

Republican Leaders Provided Fertilizer For The Seeds Of Hate.

We don’t yet know why an armed lunatic chose to shoot Congresswoman Giffords.  But we do know that the seeds of violence have, for years, been sown by commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk.  Moreover, we can be certain that those seeds were well-fertilized in the 2008 presidential campaign, most especically at the Republican National Convention.

I watched both national conventions gavel to gavel and was shocked by the vitriol prominently displayed in every speech by Republicans.  Rather than focus on policy, Republicans chose to focus on personal attacks.  From the snarky comments by Sarah Palin to the snide diatribes of Senator McCain, the conservative venom was unrestrained.  We were treated to derisive questions about President Obama’s citizenship and his service as a community organizer.  By contrast, I heard no such attacks from speakers at the Democratic National Convention.

And when the results were in, Republicans suggested that they didn’t lose the election, ACORN helped the Democrats “steal” it.

Since then, the ugly rhetoric from the right has only gotten worse.  Republican leaders have used every conceivable legislative trick to block Democratic initiatives.  They railed about the “big government takeover.”  They talked about “death panels.”  And they howled about Democrats trying to “push through their liberal agenda.”  Then, leading up to the mid-term elections, we were treated to the sight of Tea Party demonstrators carrying signs portraying President Obama as Hitler and as the Joker.  We were also forced to witness demonstrators bringing guns to rallies and threatening to “exercise their 2nd Amendment rights” if Republican Tea Party candidates didn’t get their way.

Here in Arizona, I have often been forced to bite my tongue as local Republican leaders referred to President Obama as “illegitimate” and Nancy Pelosi as “a disgusting pig.”  I have listened to McCain, Governor Brewer and State Senator Russell Pearce vilify latinos.  And, like most people, I have been the recipient of a seemingly endless variety of ugly, untruthful chain emails against our President and his supporters.

Now I know that those on the right will suggest that liberals are just as bad.  But any comparison of Rush, Beck or Fox News Channel with MSNBC is a false equivalency.  Certainly many on the left have contributed to the unpleasantness but, unlike their right-wing counterparts, I have yet to witness a Democrat talking about committing violent acts such as “taking out” an opponent.  I have never heard Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz call for Democrats to take weapons to rallies, or to “target” those with whom they disagree.

In any case, we all must change the way we discuss politics.  We must try to respect those with whom we disagree even when we disagree with their opinions.  We must try to separate the policies from the person.  And we must politely, but firmly, tell those who make outrageous statements that they are not acceptable.  We must refuse to vote for candidates who invoke hatred.  And when we hear political commentators make disgusting, violent statements, we must switch channels and inform the station or network that we will no longer tolerate the rhetoric of violence and hate.

If not, the event in Tucson is likely to be repeated across our nation.

News Integrity (And Fox’s Lack Thereof)

Since Spiro Agnew, conservatives have railed against the so-called liberal news media.  Indeed, half-governor Palin is fond of referring to any media other than Fox News Channel as “lame stream media.”  And conservatives proudly point to Fox News as the only place to learn the “real truth” about politics.

At the same time, they deride one of the most liberal news outlets, MSNBC, as partisan and dishonest.  Really?

If Fox News is so “fair and balanced,” why then does the network blatantly promote Republican candidates on air?  Why does it sponsor conservative rallies?  Why does the network make contributions to Republican candidates?  Why do its “news” hosts also dole out political contributions to conservative candidates?

And why does MSNBC suspend its most popular host for making contributions to 3 Democratic candidates?

Could it be that MSNBC and other networks have integrity?  And Fixed News doesn’t?

POLL: What’s The Biggest Problem With Polls?

A. Only a few are accurate
B. They may be easily manipulated in the way the questions are asked
C. The results may be used by politicians to support or “confirm” specious arguments
D. Their main purpose is to fill 24/7 news cycles
E. All of the above

If you watch Fox News Channel and CNN or visit on-line “news” websites, you are bombarded with polls. “Is the Obama administration doing enough to manage the BP gusher?” “Has the administration done enough to reign in government spending?” “Has the administration ignored job creation?” “Did Democrats go too far in passing health care reform?” “Has the Obama administration ignored illegal immigration?”

All of these questions may seem innocuous enough, but the very fact that the media is asking them, and the way they’re being asked, has a direct influence on public opinion. The questions, themselves, imply the desired answer. And the media know it. If they were really interested in public opinion most of those questions would be asked in a more objective way, and many of them would never be asked at all.

The inescapable conclusion is that the media, most especially Fox “News” Channel, are using polls in order to create controversy, fill airtime and shape public opinion. Moreover, politicians and their allies spout the results to reinforce their points of view regardless of the manner in which the polls are conducted. Objectivity, fairness and logic be damned.