Corporate Media's Gravy Boats

Gotta hand it to Sarah Palin for holding it all in. Say what you want about her (or don't. I'm rather tired of her. And this isn't about her), she's not as explosive in public as her private persona is known to be - or as the person who handles her Twitter and Facebook accounts is. Breitbart, on the other hand, is who he always is - a blowhard cynic and full of big, fat stupid.

It needs to be pointed out, of course, that the intent of this whole fiasco was to intimidate the pro-union protesters. The fact that the Tea Party would be shouted down isn't necessarily rude - it's protective.

And sweet, delectable, and frothy irony.

But what is particularly damning in this video is the media's take. Fox and CNN (and MSNBC and ABC and NBC and CBS and the New York Times and HuffPo and the Chicago Tribune...) are not only or even primarily concerned about providing and/or analyzing information and happenings. They certainly are not objective - no one can be - though there can be balance with multiple perspectives. The problem is that news is not about the news anymore. It is not about public interest as it was in its heyday in the middle of the twentieth century. It is a business.

The questions are no longer, "What matters? What is important?" The overriding question is "What sells?"- because the primary voice is not the public interest, but the business community. News organizations and shows rarely rock the boat, because they need to keep the boat going as long as possible to keep their shows going as popular as long as possible but also to keep their advertisers and corporate heads happy.

The narrative of Sarah Palin - as outdated and irrelevant as she may be to most voters - as a relevant iconoclast and/or lightning rod is still fascinating enough to draw in numerous viewers. Whether or not they love her is inconsequential; she attracts them and that's all she needs to do. And if they allow her to be publicly embarrassed, her star will fall faster than it has already.

And CNN/Fox and their corporate parents would instantly lose a steady (though declining) gravy boat. Instead of allowing it to ride out to its gravy-laden pasture.

Conversations and Ruminations Post-Massacre

"Love Will Tear Us Apart."

- Joy Division

I get really heated about politics because I see policy as an important (though not THE most important) way to protect and love my neighbors - a cause that I believe that Jesus has called all of his followers to. Actually, that's not why I'm heated about it. That's why I think it's necessary, but I'm actually angry and/or deeply disappointed that so many fellow American Christians have a total disconnect between policy that would best serve "the least of these" and what they perceive as the Kingdom of Heaven - which they see as merely a place you go after you die.

photo © 1970 Dave Gilbert | more info (via: Wylio)

Of course, I also have many friends whom I disagree with merely on how to apply policy to best serve the needs of the whole community. And I love talking with them, and having policy discussions, and discovering the truth behind the typical talking points. I learn a lot from them, I sharpen my thoughts and begin to view those I disagree with (those supposedly on the other end of the political spectrum) as every bit as human as I, and I begin to drop my guard and give them credit where credit is due. I like to think they also benefit from debating with me.

The problem, however, is that oftentimes we get caught up in the waves of rhetoric that surround us on all sides. We can't help it fully. We don't live in vacuums. Even trying to talk about scaling back the rhetoric looks, to some thoughtful people, at this time like an attack on groups of people - or as if I were saying that the massacre happened as a result of some pundit's foolish talk.*

It helps, as friend Carson notes and Jon Stewart held a rally to promote, to buttress our opinions and statements to bring the tone down, of course. But, noticing some of the comments on Carson's post, changing your tone doesn't work when you're dealing with the tone-deaf...

Which is what's happening in much of the media. I commend Keith Olbermann for pledging to scale back (from what I've heard, he did not use the infamous/famous "Worst Person in the World" line and calling the health care travesty in Arizona the "AZ Death Panel" - at least through Monday night), but for how long will this last?

While I was on the treadmill this morning, I noticed that CNN was showing the Congressional memorial for the victims at least through Minority Leader Pelosi's speech as well as Majority Leader Cantor's. Fox News, on the other hand, was using the opportunity to give Palin free reign to defend her despicable, violent speech (it's free speech, apparently, and you can't criticize it as long as it's hers... That's what the Constitution says, don'tchaknow?).

Truly, I want to be in a space where I can continue to dialog with my friends. But this country is toxic right now. It doesn't have to be. We can choose to turn away the hateful rhetoric. We can tell Congress that we can no longer afford to

Or, we can forget about living in The Greatest Country in the World (one of plurality of ideas and cultures) and move into our gated tribal "communities" based on social/racial/political/class/religious tests. Unless that's what we're already in?

*The point that most of my progressive friends are making when bringing up the rhetoric debate is that it leads to a poisonous environment, not that it was directly involved in the shooting. But nuances sometimes fail.

News of the Weird: When Jon Beat Me to It

News of the Weird Thursdays is MY BEAT! Yet, here I stand, once again being scooped by the Daily Show. If it weren't for the Daily Show, I'd be big time newspaper tycoon now. But watch, and be amazed:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
News of the Weird - Mark McGwire, Game Change & Sarah Palin
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Click here if the video doesn't show/work.

And don't say I didn't warn you. It's CRAAAAAZY!

Weekly Links We Like to Link to: Huh?

No promises on the political front this time. I'll just say that it's not as partisan as I tend to be.

Sand Pirates of the Caribbean?
These cats are taking off with hundreds of truckloads of sand (used for building material) out of both private and public lands. Ecologically, at least, it's a baaad idea. Aarrgh!

Professor Glen C. Rowly considers a time when he was caught between his friend (who self-identified himself as Black even though he could easily pass) and complete strangers at a Black Panther meeting and how we sometimes betray our friends and other aspects and responsibilities of ourselves in order to be accepted into our tribes. - as well as how our tribal identity fits in with our politics and worldview and visa versa. Our identities are complex, and our responses to calls of the tribe should be nuanced (My thoughts, not necessarily his).

What is it now, two weeks? I think this is how the last stretch should end.

via HuffingtonPost
. And thanks to Art for reminding me again that I should always check my posts!

I think that...

... it's a bad idea to pay people to get signatures through canvassing without first training them in basic electoral ethics and on how to verify identities and then verifying identities and party affiliations yourself. You'll end up with a bunch of phony names (as many of ACORN's freelancers did), or end up 'accidentally' changing people's party affiliations to Republican (as YPM has done in California and Florida). [Update: Please don't send voter registration material to dead goldfish. It only further confuses people.]

... it's not just overly dramatic but disingenuous to state that your opponents' allies are threatening "to tear apart the very fabric of democracy itself" when what your opponents' allies are doing (registering fake voters who could never show up to vote even if they made it through all of the checkpoints anyway) poses no real threat to the democratic process while what your allies do (making it harder for Democrats and Independents to actually vote) does. After all, can anyone believe ACORN itself (and not some of its laziest workers) wants a fictional character like Mickey Mouse to be registered as a Democrat, when it would be so much easier to trick an actual, living registered Republican into switching party allegiance - thereby increasing the odds that he would not vote?

... if a major candidate keeps espousing the inherent goodness and "real patriot"-ism of small town folks, if she quotes from a Dixiecrat apologist who told Bobby Kennedy that he hopes someone would shoot him square in the head in defense of these small town values, then maybe she should expect that those fearful and god-forsaken big cities and suburbs (and the people groups that fill them) will probably not want to vote for her. Maybe, in fact, she doesn't really love all of America herself. But that would make her anti-American.

... if that same candidate says about her foe that she fears that "he just doesn't love America like you or I" while she is married to a man who was part of a secessionist group (you know, if you want to play the associative game here, think of the last great secessionist group - that's right, the Confederates), she should probably shut her big trap.

... when a congressperson calls into question the patriotism her fellow congresspeople based on the fact that they do not believe as she believes or the way that she believes it - and in fact calls for a witch-hunt to snuff out those anti-Americans and un-patriotic Americans from public duty - she needs to be laughed out of public service. Her kind of rhetoric is vitriolic and dangerous. But above all, mentally retarded.

"Well, he's got the bloodline for it. I mean, just look at his name."

So, why am I scared of Sarah Palin?

Maybe it's her rampant anti-intellectualism (this charge has been leveled at her by no less a conservative and recent Palin-turner as David Brooks). Maybe I don't want an alcoholic-driving-her-kids-to-afterschool-programs's finger on the button. Maybe it's the stupid, stupid, stupid mob mentality of her followers:



As I mentioned in yesterday's post on chicagodads, I'm not in the least bit concerned that this hateful (and considerably racist) rhetoric will win the hearts, minds o"r votes of undecided moderates. But I am fully concerned about how low our level of discourse has sunk; about how many in our nation feel that intelligence and knowledge is something to be mocked; about rampant xenophobia unchecked by our leaders. For Pete's sake, Obama's been vetted by noone less capable than Hillary Clinton. If people want to remain stupid, fine. Just don't go outdoors. Or run for vice president.

More Supreme Court case wackiness (Or: How I was wrong and learned to be wrong again)

The other day I mistakenly assumed that when asked about her knowledge of major cases in the US Supreme Court, Governor Palin was asked about any of which she knew off-hand. That question would make sense, because she should have some sort of authority on what it is that the Supreme Court has done and does do. As next-in-line for chief executive of the whole United States of America, she should be well acqauinted on the roles, responsibilities and histories of the other branches as they are all intricately and powerfully connected. That's how the founding fathers set this government up, at any rate, with checks and balances up and down and accross the lines.

Apparently, Ms. Palin was asked to name another SC case that she disagreed with outside of Roe V. Wade, which may be a bit harder - at least for the typical American citizen. But again, despite what Fred Thompson declares (that she wasn't prepared for that question because she wasn't handled with a list yet), it should not be beyond her grasp. Not if she is seeking for the office that she is seeking.

But since your all-time high-stakes debate is set to happen in a couple hours, allow me to help you out. Governor Palin, if someone asks you what you find abhorrent and wrong, the answer should always be, "Man's inhumanity to man." Or some such approximation. And the further removed and more So, therefore, if you are allowed to go back into history, choose something distant and universally regaled, such as Plessy v. Ferguson which legalized discrimination based on skin color, allowed "separate but equal" status to blacks in the US, and declared that it is not the job of the government to protect the rights of the individuals suffering under discrimination by other individuals (or local bodies of governance) in local areas.

I mean, no less a conservative than Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with this ruling.

No. Wait, haha. I was wrong again.

Palin V. American Intelligence

Sources say that in an interview segment yet to be released by Couric and CBS (as part of their Presidential Questions leading up to the VP debate this week), Governor Sarah Palin could not name one high-profile Supreme Court case besides Roe v. Wade. Apparently not one before nor one after. So, I thought it would be a good exercise to count how many SC cases I could rattle off, just in case either one of the Parties wanted to pick me up in the off chance that a loose-lipped VP candidate bows out. Here's my list and what they signified for the American people:

1. Brown v. Board of Ed. - The wrongness of the 'Separate but Equal' argument
   
2. The People v. Larry Flynt - Free speech (and costly pix) even for moralless creeps like him
   
3. Kramer v. Kramer - The right for emotional sappy movies even about divorce
   
4. Spy v. Spy - The right to copy Tom and Jerry and Wil. E. Coyote gags
   
5. Alien v. Predator - That was just about who could kick who's butt in no-holds-barred terror throw-down
   

This is ridiculous partisanship

Despite the fact that we all know that had Sen. Obama picked Sen. Clinton as his running mate, he would have little question in the polls now it still would have been a bad choice. She just reeks of bad form.

Consider the fact that Clinton was going to attend a rally outside of the UN protesting against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (Yes, that takes some major cajones.) Then her people got word from reporters that Gov. Palin might show up too. According to the AP:

That would have set up a closely scrutinized and potentially explosive pairing in the midst of a presidential campaign, one in which the New York senator is campaigning for Democratic nominee Barack Obama while Palin actively courts disappointed Clinton supporters.

So Clinton backed out.

Okay, that's somewhat understandable. But check out this line of reasoning:

"Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. "Sen. Clinton will therefore not be attending."

Maybe Reines doesn't understand what the word 'partisan' means. If representatives from each of the two-party political system are invited and show up, that would by definition make it 'non-partisan'. Nobody complained when Sens. Obama and McCain were within hugging distance on September 11th.

I agree with Clinton on policy issues, and I believe her when she says she'll fight for us. But if she wants to win ever and maybe change the face of the US, maybe she should learn what graciousness is.

h/t to Peter Chattaway

Tina Fey: female chauvinist pig

The McCain campaign's got some balls.

Tina Fey's portrayal of Governor Sarah Palin on SNL the other night was "disrespectful in the extreme, and yes, I would say, sexist in the sense that just because Sarah Palin has different views than Hillary Clinton does not mean that she lacks substance." (source)

Wait, so, is McCain spokesperson Carly Fioriana saying that because Palin doesn't agree with Clinton those who disagree with Palin are being sexist?

My head hurts from all this spin.

Extra:
Remember that quote about Good people/small towns during Palin's speech at the RNC? Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s got some words to say about the author of that piece. It ain't pretty:

Fascist writer Westbrook Pegler, an avowed racist... expressed his fervent hope about my father, Robert F. Kennedy, as he contemplated his own run for the presidency in 1965, that "some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow flies."

Weekend Links We Like to Link to - the triumphant return

First off, I would like to turn some attention to my community pastor at New Community Covenant Church, Chicago - David. He's got a great little literate and thoughtful blog called signs of life and I think it's worth a read.
As well, a hat tip to Pastor David (via FaceBook) for this article in Time on the Republican myth of small-town America; Joe Klein particularly addresses the whole small-town/Jeffersonian yeo-man nostalgia that the GOP has so effectively fashioned and hearkened to since Reagan and is now vastly utilizing with the popular Palin.

Since we're on the topic of politics (and we'll be right off again. It's just sooo danged interesting and infuriating at the same time. Sorry), RC has an intriguing article about how Russia/USSR is way ahead of the US in the fight against Baldism and Hairyism in regards to their top leaders.

The Amish have been getting some positive buzz since the school-house killings and their subsequent mercy on the killer. But I had absolutely no idea that not only are they not dying out, but they're sprawling:

The Amish are expanding their presence in states far beyond Pennsylvania Dutch country as they search for affordable farmland to accommodate a population that has nearly doubled in the past 16 years, a new study found...
Amish couples typically have five or more children. With more than four out of every five deciding in young adulthood to remain in the church, their population has grown. More than half the population is younger than 21. A small portion of the increase is also due to conversions to the faith.

Word to the wise: Be kind to the next buggy-driver you plan to pass by.
h/t to Scott McKnight.