The return of Dick Vader?

Posted on by

Liz Cheney has stated that she hopes her father will run for President in 2012.  Even allowing for the admiration that a daughter naturally feels toward her father, I have to respond, “Are you out of your @%#^ing mind?! “

This week’s most popular movie at the box office is a disaster epic entitled “2012” which portrays the end of the Earth.  If Dick Cheney were to be elected President, reality could well be more awful than fiction. 

Just imagine, in a Cheney presidency, there would no namby-pamby diplomacy with other nations.  No dithering with our enemies.  Indeed, we’d likely attack every nation that wouldn’t kowtow to Cheney.  We’d treat all Americans as suspected terrorists and spy on their phone calls and emails.  We’d jail our political enemies and hold them for years without trial.  We’d cut taxes on the rich.  We’d virtually eliminate taxes on large corporations.  We’d transfer even more wealth to our overlords.  We’d conduct all government business with no-bid contracts.  We’d privatize our military.  We’d politicize everything.  And we’d centralize all power in the executive branch. 

Wait!   Isn’t that what happened when Cheney was running the country with Bush as a figurehead?

Going Rogue with the truth.

Posted on by

I haven’t purchased Sarah Palin’s best-selling rant and I won’t.  I don’t need to.  Before it was dissected by the Associated Press and others, I already knew it would be filled with hate and lies.   

How did I know?

During last year’s presidential campaign, no one was more sarcastic, mean-spirited and uninformed than Sarah Palin.  And no one told more lies.  In fact, I vowed to send an email to Senator John McNasty every time I found his campaign to be less than truthful.  Unfortunately for me, my vow resulted in writing an email virtually every day of the campaign.  Some days, I sent 3, 4 or more.  Many of those emails were in response to Ellie Mae Clampett’s, er, Sarah Palin’s speeches.  From her constant refrain that Obama was “palin’ around with terrorists” to her attacks on his having been a community organizer to her rants about the media (the disaster that was her CBS interview wasn’t her fault, it was Katie Couric’s) Palin revealed virtually every character flaw known to man.  Or woman.

It seems that Palin is such a rogue that she refuses to rely on traditional sources for her information.  Instead, she draws her political wisdom from Joe the Plumber (who’s neither a plumber nor named Joe), Rush Limbaugh and Glenn “crocodile tears” Beck. 

In Sarah’s mavericky mind, not even her running mate or his campaign staff grasped the real issues.  After all, her running mate was merely a U.S. Senator while she was the former mayor of Wasilla and a hockey mom.  If only they wouldn’t have held her back, the country would be much better off today with her at the helm after she had disposed of that wrinkly old bald guy who dared to put his name in front of hers on the ballot.

For me, the real question regarding Palin is why anyone would buy her book or bother to fact check it – unless they enjoy fantasy and fiction. 

“An electronic Pearl Harbor”

Posted on by

Last Sunday, a report by Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes discussed the threat of cyber terrorism.

At the center of his report, Kroft interviewed Jim Lewis who directs the Center for Strategic and International Studies. According to Lewis, the United States has already experienced “an electronic Pearl Harbor.” Lewis continued, “Some unknown foreign power, and honestly, we don’t know who it is, broke into the Department of Defense, to the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, probably the Department of Energy, probably NASA. They broke into all of the high-tech agencies, all of the military agencies, and downloaded terabytes of information. Someone was able to get past the firewall and encryption devices of one of the most sensitive U.S. military computer systems and stay inside for several days,” he stated. The system he referred to is the CENTCOM network, which is our military’s control center for fighting wars. Lewis said that the hackers sat inside the network, tracking information and documents “like they were part of military command.” According to Lewis, this is the “most significant” breach of security ever “acknowledged by the Pentagon.”

Proof that the Obama administration is weak militarily and soft on terrorism? No, wait!

Christian paranoia and Internet myths

Posted on by

I recently received a chain email from multiple independent sources.  The email states that the ACLU – deemed to be a bunch of radical commies by so many conservative and religious groups – had filed a lawsuit to have all cross-shaped headstones removed from military cemeteries. 

Sounds terrible, doesn’t it?  And it would be if there was even a shred of truth to it. 

The same email also tells of another lawsuit that would end prayer in the military.  “Navy chaplains can no longer mention Jesus’ name in prayer thanks to the wretched ACLU and our new administration,” it warns.  Again, this is a fiction of someone’s imagination. 

To ensure that as many people as possible circulate these falsehoods, the email continues by asking recipients to “please pass this on after a short prayer.  Don’t break it.”  And like sheep, thousands, perhaps millions, of people have added their contacts to the email and passed it on without checking the facts. 

In this case, the email is likely intended as payback to the ACLU for its past actions in protecting the civil rights of minorities.  Politically conservative Christians are still seething that the ACLU blocked them from surrounding us all with Christian prayer and sayings.  They are furious that they have been prevented from striking down the Constitution’s establishment clause in order to declare this a Christian nation.  They are frustrated that they are not permitted to abridge the freedom and rights of non-Christians. And they believe that Christianity is under attack. 

None of this justifies their attempts to spread political and religious paranoia. 

Indeed, such emails are beyond reprehensible.  And by making false and unsubstantiated accusations, they are decidedly un-Christian.  Worse yet, they rely upon the good and caring nature of individuals to unsuspectingly circulate and perpetuate the accusations.

That said, the people who unwittingly pass along such false and misleading information must also be held culpable.  They are guilty of assuming the worst and not taking the time to check for the truth.  In the case of the aforementioned email, it took me less than 30 seconds of research to determine that it was false.

The Chamber of (Republican) Commerce.

Posted on by

Recently, the CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was interviewed on NPR.  He went to great lengths to convince listeners that the Chamber is bi-partisan. 

That’s a little difficult to believe since the Chamber seems to support every single Republican position.  Indeed, when I once did some work for the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber proudly hosted speeches by each of the Republican candidates for Governor.  It refused to allow the Democratic candidate to speak to its members.  And, of course, the Chamber endorsed a Republican.

The U.S. Chamber is now spending $300,000 a day on network TV commercials to kill health care reform using the scare tactics that are so favored by Republicans and the insurance industry.  That alone is not terribly surprising, or revealing.  What IS revealing is the commercial’s voiceover.  Although I don’t know his name, the voiceover talent is the very same one used in every single attack ad for the Republican National Committee.  You know, the guy who, sounding like the voice of darkness, asks you to call your representatives and tell them “we just can’t afford health care reform” or whatever scary legislation the Democrats have proposed today.  Whenever, wherever Republicans want to verbally attack an idea, they use his voice. 

The choice of the voice talent is no coincidence.  It indicates that the Chamber is working in concert with the Republican Party.  If the Chamber really wanted to keep the appearance (or at least the sound) of bi-partisanship, it should have selected another voice to try to scare us.  

The Chamber claims to represent more than 3 million members (the number is actually 200,000) and small businesses as well as large corporations.   Yet, almost without exception, the positions endorsed by the Chamber benefit large corporations and the Republican Party at the expense of small businesses and entrepreneurs.  The Chamber’s position on health care reform is no different.

Are you feeling “entitled?”

Posted on by

For many years, the Republican Party has been determined to change or end the so-called “entitlement” programs of Social Security and Medicare.  As early as 1984, I recall reading the Republican National Party’s platform which called for “starving the beast” that is big government by reducing taxes and cutting the federal budget to force the elimination of these so-called “wasteful” programs.   In the place of these social safety nets, Republicans proposed an emphasis on personal responsibility and faith-based initiatives. 

In other words, big business and the wealthy have no responsibility for those who are not as fortunate as they.  If someone loses a job, gets sick, or suffers some other personal tragedy, it’s his or hers own fault.  These people should have never allowed themselves to be in that position anyway.  And there are always church missions to make these people see the error of their ways, convince them of their own failings and set them on the road to success.

Of course, Republicans are also against any form of government regulation and collective bargaining.  There must be nothing to interfere with the forces of the “free” market. 

Given this backdrop, is it any wonder that Republicans have been having such a snit over health care reform, let alone a public option? 

And, in one of the most cynical and hypocritical tactics of all time, the Republican Party and its allies are actually using Medicare to scare the oldest (and most likely to vote) segment of our population into speaking out against health care reform.  They claim that the reform bill proposed by Democrats would drastically cut Medicare benefits.  Never mind that the cuts that are in the proposed bill only cut waste and duplication.  And never mind that the Republican Party would prefer to completely eliminate Medicare as part of its war on “entitlements.“

All Americans would be wise to remember which party legislated Social Security and Medicare in the first place.  Here’s a hint:  It wasn’t the GOP.

Michelle Bachmann’s great big Washington adventure.

Posted on by

Last week, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann orchestrated a “press conference” on the steps of the U.S. Capitol to show the outrage of ordinary citizens toward health care reform.  She wanted her followers to express their anger and “see the whites of lawmaker’s eyes.”  Dozens attended – all white, angry and stupid.  These people displayed their character by holding signs likening health care reform to the holocaust and to 9/11.  They held signs that were blatantly racist.  And of course, there were lots of signs picturing guns or talking about guns.

Do these people, as Bachmann and Fox News would have you believe, represent a cross-section of ordinary Americans?  Let’s hope not.  I suspect that they more closely resemble a cross-section of the Aryan Nation.

Whoever or whatever they represent, it’s apparent that these people simply are not capable of grasping complicated issues such as health care reform.  And it’s obvious that all that thinking is creating some mental distress.  I understand Michelle and her husband own some sort of mental health facility in Minnesota.  (Isn’t that just deliciously ironic?)  Perhaps she should consider holding her next event there.  It seems like she and her followers could all use some counseling and a time out. 

A politician who is unafraid to tell the truth.

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Congressman Alan Grayson (D Fla.) took the floor in Congress to read the death toll of those who lacked health insurance in the districts of Republican Representatives.  “Is it really asking too much of us that we keep people alive?” he asked.  Of course, the Republicans tried to cut him off and asked the clerk to take down his words.  But Congressman Grayson did not waiver.  When the session reconvened, he continued to read the list. 

Grayson is somewhat unique in Washington political circles.  For one thing, he is a Democrat with a spine.  For another, he seems to tell the truth no matter how embarrassing or discomforting the truth is.  For example, he famously (and correctly) summarized the Republican health care plan by saying “The Republican health care plan is this: ‘Don’t get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly.’”   

Grayson is one of the few Representatives who have embraced and discussed the real tragedy of our broken health care system – that approximately 45,000 people die each year because they do not have or cannot afford access to health care.  That’s like having 15 9/11s each year!  Yet rather than try to fix the system, Republicans are doing everything in their power to kill health reform.   Senator Jim DeMint publicly stated “If we can stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo.”  More recently, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann called for protestors to “scare” lawmakers into killing health care reform.  She may as well be calling for them to kill the uninsured. 

If Republicans are successful, they will be responsible for another 45,000 deaths next year and each year until we have universal health care coverage for American citizens.   

Obama’s Third War

Posted on by

Recently, the Obama administration declared a new war – a war on Fox News.  Although I don’t entirely agree with the Obama administration’s action, I certainly understand it.  News organizations have a responsibility to present facts in an unbiased manner and to clearly distinguish opinion from news.  Fox News does neither.

Indeed, the network itself claims that only a few hours a day are news.  It refers to the rest of its programming as “conversations.”  During these “conversations,” Fox News allows Hannity, Beck, O’Reilly, et al and their guests to make unsubstantiated claims or wild allegations against the administration and other Democrats.  Then it “reports” those claims and allegations during its “newscasts” and on its “news” crawls.  The network has even sponsored and promoted one-sided political events such as “tea parties” and “9-12” demonstrations.  These are not the actions of a legitimate news organization.

Moreover, compared to assaults on the press by some of its predecessors, the administration’s response to Fox News is actually quite mild.  For example, President George W. Bush not only refused access to reporters and organizations deemed antagonistic to his agenda, the Bush administration produced propaganda disguised as “news” stories and provided them to local TV and radio stations.  It paid journalists to present White House talking points.  It even tried to limit funding for public radio and TV unless their reporting became friendlier to the Bush White House.

Unlike some of the Bush administration’s actions, the snub of Fox News does not raise any constitutional issues.  It is not censorship.  The Obama administration is not telling Fox News what it can say or report.  The administration simply limited press invitations to representatives of actual news organizations.   Although it may be unwise to antagonize any media outlet, it is not unconstitutional.

Liberal media bias?

Posted on by

Since the days of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, conservatives have been fond of blaming MSM (mainstream media) for interfering with their agenda.   They contend that most news outlets are run by liberals and therefore biased against conservatives. 

Really? 

The vast majority of media outlets are owned by just five conglomerates (CBS, Disney, General Electric, News Corp, and TimeWarner).  Who do we have to thank for the ever-shrinking number of media owners?  Well, conservatives of course. 

For example, during the Reagan administration, Congress passed the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 which deregulated cable TV rates.  As a result, cable rates skyrocketed 25-30 percent through 1986-1988.  Then, following the Newt Gingrich-led Republican Revolution, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  Conservatives sold the bill as a way to increase competition and lower consumer costs (Does that sound familiar?).  But like most Republican legislation, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 did the exact opposite.   Following its passage, cable TV rates have jumped more than 40 percent and the number of cable system owners dropped dramatically. 

Prior to deregulation, there were thousands of cable systems.  Today, five corporations (Comcast, TimeWarner, Cox, Charter and Cablevision control the lion’s share of the market – more than 50 million households.   In addition, two companies (DirecTV and Dish) control satellite TV serving than 31 million households, three media giants own all of the cable news networks, five corporations dominate Internet news, and one corporation (Clear Channel) owns 900 radio stations. 

Such large media conglomerates can hardly be accused of liberal bias.  Indeed, the exact opposite is more likely to be true.  Certainly many of the News Corp–owned media promote conservative points of view.   And combined with the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, it has become increasingly easy for these behemoths to control public opinion (and therefore legislation). 

Could that be the real reason behind deregulation?