Balanced News? Don't Ask Me

Preface
This started out to be a post on Congress and ineptitude. Then it was about Congress taking over too much power. Then I wanted to write about both parties in Congress saying no to the Exec. Branch. (Rants)
But the more I researched an article I'd read the more I saw another post all together. Then even that changed to what you find below.
Sorry, this is a very long post but I don't want to shorten it. I thought about making it two posts but I don't want to interrupt the flow. I am not really sure how to break it up either. Consequently, the post is extremely long and time consuming. Just what a post should not be. Time is a valuable commodity these days.


Even when you try to get truly balanced news, you end up in a conundrum. (More Circles of Confusion) How does one tell which coverage is balanced? Don't ask me. I don't know. I am actually asking you.

Let's agree for purposes of this post that over-the-air TV and the 24-hour, cable or satellite, coverage is generally short and sweet. But they may give you enough information to seek out more in other news venues. The morning talk shows, the cable, satellite, “news” shows, will sometimes give another little piece of information whether right, center, or left. Now you are on your own. So you read papers or you go on-line and you take a time to check a little more for yourself. Yet, how do you know which article or writing is even trying to be balanced? You may find as I did you'll end up reading an article, trying to find more by and about the author of the article, trying to figure out who his/her real boss is, trying to find out for what the boss really stands(mission statements, other outlets, etc.). Too there are the weekly news magazines and “news” shows but I don't think you want me to get into that.

You could well spend a day or more doing all that investigation and determine you cannot find one person, place or thing that does not have an agenda, thereby a slant when covering the same news item. Of course I remember about psychological testing having, can't help but have, some subjective bias. With the use of statistics, use of large samples, and use of tests that can be replicated, the bias is lessened. However in reporting, writing, and editing, I figure there is bias-No matter how hard the people involved try to give balanced reporting. The reasons are many and the bias not always intended. The reader too comes to each article with a certain bias.

Now on with my search on a story about the Senate passing a bill on Iran Sanctions. The House had passed their version earlier. The two bills must be reconciled in the House-Senate Conference before going to the President.

While reading the NY Times on-line the other day, I saw this coverage: Senate OK's Sanctions on Iran's Fuel Suppliers. link Here is the first paragraph to get you started:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate on Thursday approved legislation that would let President Barack Obama impose sanctions on Iran's gasoline suppliers and penalize some of Teheran's elites, a move aimed at pressuring Tehran to give up its nuclear program.
(Note the use of the words “let President Barack Obama...”)
Please read the article further. At least read the other restrictions section near the end of the article.

I will give you one restriction as it pertains to some of the other articles I found:
Require the Obama administration to freeze the assets of Iranians, including Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, who are active in weapons proliferation or terrorism;
(Note the use of the words “Require the Obama administration...)

Remember these two quotations were found in the same news item.

Now look at this one from Baptist Press: Senate OKs tougher sanctions on Iran.
Here is the first paragraph:
The U.S. Senate approved increased sanctions on Iran's oil-related imports Jan 28 in a move intended to help prevent the extremist Islamic regime from developing nuclear weapons.

Further into the article :
The Senate's action came two days after Land and 45 other Christian leaders wrote to members of the body asking them to follow the example of the House.
(Land is Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. For further on the letter and those 45 others go here

From an articleYESHIVA WORLD NEWS: Schumer Announces Passage of Iran Sanction Legislation that Strengthens Efforts To Stop Iran From Getting Nukes
first paragraph:
Today, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer announced that the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009 has unanimously passed the Senate. The Iranian regime has engaged in serious human rights abuses against its own citizens, funded terrorist activity throughout the Middle East, pursued illicit nuclear activities posing a serious threat to the security of the United States, the Middle East Region, and our allies. The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act strengthens sanctions and supports the President as he pursues a dual track of engagements and sanctions. Schumer, in his role as a Banking Committee member, was instrumental in seeing the bill come to the floor for a vote. The House passed a much narrower sanctions package in December while the two bills now have to be conferenced, Schumer is vowing to fight to ensure the stronger Senate Language prevails.
(Note these words “strengthens sanctions and supports the President...”)

The article mentions a Sense of Congress on human rights and the like.

Turns out Sen. Schumer signs letters to the President also.
Two weeks ago, Schumer signed onto a letter from Senator Even Bayh urging President Obama to consider using sanctions on the books. (I think they meant to consider using the sanctions he had at hand)

You can read the whole letter at the end of the article.


Catholic press 
A very short one paragraph coverage by one of the Catholic press. Mainly it refers to Catholic leaders Bill Hudson and Bill Donahue, members of the above mentioned Christian Leaders for a Nuclear-Free Iran, and they supported and will continue to work for a nuclear free Iran. They do get two links to articles they wrote on the subject.

At this point I looked for world-view items. HereAl Jazeera English had an older article.
First Paragraph:
The US lower house of congress has approved legislation to levy sanctions on foreign companies that help supply fuel to Iran, as part of efforts to punish Tehran over its nuclear programme.

Further on there are interviews with Congresspeople about the bill. Issues are raised about the “concerns” of “U.S. Trading partners and allies...” And an interview with “Afshin Rattansi, a journalist based in Iran, told Al Jazeera: "I think what is happening in the House of Representatives demonstrates yet again a complete lack of comprehension of what is happening in the Middle East.”

There are more interviews with “supporters” and more reporting on the world views as well as a little of the Iranian views of its “nuclear programme”. The article ends by naming some of the companies involved and how they are reacting.

IPS, Inter Press Service News Agency,-The Story Underneath, had a lengthy article.
US: Obama Losing Control of Iran Policy
Here is the opening paragraph:
In a surprisingly swift move on Thursday night that could have wide-ranging implications, the U.S. Senate passed a bill containing broad unilateral sanctions to punish foreign companies that export gasoline to Iran or help expand its domestic refiner capabilities.

These paragraphs relate back to the words “let” and “require” as mentioned in the NY Times article:
The contents of the bill require the president to impose the wide-ranging sanctions, restraining the traditional presidential foreign policy waiver to a line-by-line exemption that forces Obama to spend political capital. ... Another aspect of the Dodd bill raising eyebrows is the codification into law of an embargo against Iran by Pres. Bill Clinton in the 1990's. The Dodd bill requires Congress to approve the lifting of the embargo.

This writer, reporter, goes into more on the “human rights” debates. (I recommend you hunt that part.)
The article has much explanation of the maneuvering and has quotations from both Democratic and Republican Senators along with “neoconservative independent Joe Lieberman”. There are interviews with a member of the National Iranian American Council and other groups that support engagement with Iran.

So there you have it 6 articles from 6 different news agencies. Now you tell me which one we should declare as “fair and balanced”. (speaking of “fair and balanced”, I couldn't find much on the Senate passage subject on FOX news I found the AP item and so far 3 anti-Obama comments. If you find more feel free to comment.) I did not search the British news for this post. I am sure it would be interesting, but I really do have a little daily life.



(For a fun look at reporting from the BBC go to sobeale blog and watch the video posted on January 31.)

Hereis a serious look at the state of journalism.

Just as I Thought. They Did It

Me finding a hiding place


They Did IT

It is official a corporation is more of a person than you would think.
Sad but true.
All I can say is, I am not surprised.

Justice John Paul Stevens read a long dissent from the bench. He said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings. His decision was joined by the other three members of the court’s liberal wing.

(from the NY Times article)

I can see that the story says unions too. Oh joy. What about Lobbies? What about "citizens' groups"? Small and really small businesses? Let's all have at it! If you have lots and lots of money, have a good time. If you don't, well, sorry. (Not really, no one is sorry for the lack of power for the poor. They might actually have something to say.)
Well maybe the unions will pay attention to their members' wishes. That will be some balance to corporate spending. But, I fear with the loss of power and membership Unions won't be enough.
Maybe, just maybe, Congress will get busy and try again? Nah, they need all the money and future jobs they can get.
As you can probably tell, I don't like this one at all.

Be Careful Who Decides for You

After reading a post at the foundation-wallace entitled: Cointelpro, I began to wonder about generational differences, historically speaking. Thomas is apparently much younger than I. Which then led to the definition of generation. demographics from the Census Bureau is very interesting. Basically though a generation is considered those being born within a 10-12 year time frame.

Back to Thomas' post. I did not know the term Cointelpro, but was certainly aware of much that happened. In particular the things that happened when the Director of the FBI was J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI bio.

I remember the TV show "I Led Three Lives" synopsis here. Many in my family watched it every week.
Even though it was based on a book about spying in the 40's, to me it was happening all around me. I was pretty young. Young enough to believe that the FBI was wonderful and anything they did was all right with me. By the 70's I would finally begin to wonder about civil rights for all. (What can I say, I was wrapped up in my own little life.)

Personally, I don't care whether Dir. Hoover was a cross-dresser, gay, black, or white. None of these types of things interest me until I run across someone who yells the hardest and attacks others for their personal preferences. The thing was that Hoover was black-mailing all kinds of "important" people to get power and to keep power. When he didn't have legitimate cause to go after someone he probably made it up. No one dared try to reign him in at all.

So here is a little research on the FBI under Hoover to get the next generation started.


Dir. Hoover probably did believe His Way was best for the country. This quote may be of interest to you:

"I would have no fears if more Americans possessed the zeal, the fervor, the persistence and the industry to learn about this menace of Red fascism. I do fear for the liberal and progressive who has been hoodwinked and duped into joining hands with the communists..." Testimony of J. Edgar Hoover before HUAC - March 26, 1947

I found it Here.

From the same site on Dr. King:

J. Edgar Hoover's obsession with King is also well-documented in FBI files. These files show examples such as the FBI calling Marquette University in 1964 to tell them not to award an honorary degree to King. At Springfield College (Mass.) a month later, the FBI told the college that King's SCLC was "Communist affiliated". J. Edgar & Martin

Hoover's FBI mailed tapes of King's sexual affairs to his wife and tried to blackmail him politically; in an anonymous letter, encouraged him to commit suicide; and, among other disinformation successes, convinced Marquette University officials in 1964 to back out of giving King an honorary degree. [source]

Dir. Hoover appears to be certain he was protecting the country from the evil communists. He was a man of certainty. Speaking of certainty here is one of my spouse' favorite quotations, (probably next to "a woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke." Kipling) often called the certainty quote, which probably applies to Dir. Hoover and upon further thought humans:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

(Yeats, Wm. Butler)

Keep that quotation in mind when you are willing to give up some of your civil rights. Or put another way-when you believe that in order to be secure some civil rights must go out the window, who will decide which "little" rights you will give up and who will decide how far to go to protect your security. As we now see with some of the DNA analysis being done, many an innocent person has been found guilty.

Protests at Home and Abroad?

Robert Reich's Blog post of November 17th: Obama, China, and Wishful Thinking About American Jobs is very interesting. You can find it here

He quoted Pres. Obama: “We cannot go back...”
“...we're taking out a bunch of credit-card debt of home equity loans, but we're not selling anything to them.” Dr. Reich is discussing here the wish that the many Chinese will become consumers of American goods and services.

He went on to describe one reason the Chinese government will not, cannot, let that happen. Why they are building more factories to produce more than they can consume. If they do not create more jobs for the poor that are heading for the factories, they face possible “massive disorder”.

Thus China wants American “know-how”. So in order to sell products in China, US companies must cut deals to make goods in China not in the US. He ends this blog post with the following:

Both societies are threatened by the disconnect between production and consumption. In China, the threat is civil unrest. In the U.S., it's a prolonged jobs and earnings recession that, when combined with widening inequality, could create political backlash.

Why is it that in the U.S. The fear is only of political backlash? Why isn't there more “civil unrest” here? Of course civil unrest here doesn't need to be the same as in China. We don't need to worry about deaths to the demonstrators. We don't need to worry about trials for the demonstrators. Well mostly we don't have to fear these reactions. Why?

There are many questions in that paragraph. Maybe you have some good answers? Here are a few of my thoughts.

Maybe we are getting older and lazier? Maybe we are too busy watching TV? Maybe we are just too depressed to march? Maybe we no longer feel we have any way to make changes- “Our government doesn't listen no matter what we do.” ? Maybe we don't have the money to make the trip to ...? Maybe we have so much going on, or not as the case may be, we are in a state of confusion? (Sometimes that is me) Too many groups asking you to email, write, call, or march about so many good causes?

As for the last Why: Maybe the government and the politicians have figured out that if you let people march in protest without a lot of push back they won't get much coverage and they will pack up and go back to their meager little lives after their little protests. Think about it.

With all these questions and the many answers, the vote becomes more important than ever. My idea is that maybe instead of dread and disgust with politicians and politics we should start to study them now.
Remember 2010 could get very interesting.
Don't forget Vote Smart. It is a good way to keep up to date and keep track.

Photo is an edited photo taken by my Baby Brother.

Get the facts about the stability and security you get from health insurance reform | Health Insurance Reform Reality Check

Get the facts about the stability and security you get from health insurance reform | Health Insurance Reform Reality Check

Shared via AddThis

To Frank Rich August 16

Frank Rich wrote a very interesting column in the NY Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/opinion/16rich.html
Here is a quotation from it.

It’s through this prism we might re-examine the raucous town hall eruptions this month. Even if they are inflated by activist organizations and cable-TV overexposure, they still cannot be dismissed entirely as made-for-media phenomena made-to-measure to fill the August news vacuum. Nor are they necessarily about health care. The twisted distortions about “death panels” and federal conspiracies “to pull the plug on grandma” are just too unhinged from the reality of any actual legislation. These bogus fears are psychological proxies for bigger traumas.

The column was about Mad Men, the 60's and 2009. I was too late to post a comment on the column so I post my thoughts here.

Wrong on bogus fears.
Yet right on bogus fears.

My husband and I sent links to a very funny blog, answers to health care questions, to many people we know. It was an extremely funny blog post. It was sarcastic irony at its best.
To our surprise, though why we were surprised I do not know, several people took it seriously. What has been and is wrong with our educational system? Or is it as a friend reminded me. “Just remember the average IQ is 100. Therefore about half the people are below the average.” (He was being sarcastic)

Many people do believe the “bogus fears” about pulling the plug on grandma and some government panel deciding who can have treatments for ailments. They already live with insurance companies doing some of this so the fear of government doing it is easy to accept. Grandma is told that she is sapping the younger generation, “your kids or grandkids”, by taking Social Security and Medicare. By the way, Grandma probably paid into the system for years and is helping support those "kids and grandkids". So Grandma may believe it is possible that some may well want to pull the plug. (Why is it Grandma and not Grandpa we talk about in this context?)

We have lived as if addicted to consumerism. Many of us who could afford it have not paid attention to our own health and expect a drug to “take care” of any problem that arises from it. More consumerism because of the constant barrage of drug ads. We are told over and over that our educational system is failing. Yet, there are no real answers forthcoming and most of us don't take time to demand real answers. And the kids in school hear that their schools are no good-so why stay in the system. We talk about our kids as products-consumerism mentality. Some of us buy things to learn how we too can be among the wealthy classes. We frantically purchase anything and everything. We now see programming on how to save money, yet keep spending, by purchasing things we don't need at discount stores or flea markets. We purchase goods from many of these discount stores that are made in China to undercut our own economy. At the same time we are told saving and investing is great, but then told by saving now we hurt the economy.

Yes, there are so many anxieties. Many of us are watching as the economy is in a mess. We fear, maybe it is a fear well-grounded in reality, the government is not paying attention to “we the people”. There is no government watching or regulating much of anything. It seems corporations and various industry coalitions have purchased control. Is anyone going to really do anything about “too big too fail”. Really do anything. The very air we breathe is in question. Yet, some of our government is saying we can't change now the economy can't take it. The debt to China is concerning at the least. The deficit and the debt are in numbers we cannot even picture or read. The TV media, and much of the print media, jumps quickly from “hard news” to the latest scandal from any sector-cultural or business or … Why? Because we, the consumers, want to forget all the anxieties we cannot control. And business wants us to keep watching and reading so they can advertise at us; therefore to keep us spending.

We do feel “Don Draper's disorientation”.

Getting Money Out of "OUR" Government, maybe

When you look at what is happening with the so-called health care reform maybe you are like me thinking why. Answer:There is a huge problem--the monies the lobbies and the corps spend. This problem seems to rear its ugly head issue after issue.

So what to do???
Maybe the answer lies in campaign reform.

Meanwhile, the states have been plagued by the same problems afflicting campaigns for federal office. As the costs of campaigning for statewide office and state legislative seats skyrocketed over the last few decades, legislators have begun to place greater emphasis on fundraising. PACs,

http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_pac.shtml ,

and large donors have played an increasing role as sources of campaign revenue, and incumbents have been outspending challengers by larger and larger sums.

http://www.newrules.org/governance/rules/campaign-finance-reform

About the only way I can think of to change the balance is to challenge the way “our” elected officials get money for campaigns. But, what about the free speech issue and freedom of the press? http://www.newrules.org/governance/rules/campaign-finance-reform/campaign-finance-reform-buckley-v-valeo And See: http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/court.html

Basically the courts say that candidates' must be given the right to opt in or out of any system of campaign finance. Maine is one state where the court upheld their version because it is voluntary.
The Maine law is a little different though:

Maine's campaign finance law, known as the Clean Elections Act is different from those in other states because those who agree to accept public funding must forgo any private contributions (beyond a small amount of "seed money" and qualifying contributions) and run an entirely "clean" campaign.
The law was passed by Maine voters in a referendum in 1996 and came into effect in 2000. Candidates who demonstrate citizen support by collecting a set number of $5 qualifying contributions from voters within their districts (50 contributions for a State House race, 150 for the state Senate, and 2,500 for a gubernatorial race) are eligible for fixed and equal campaign funding from the Clean Election Fund. To receive their money, candidates must agree to forgo all private contributions (including self-financing), and limit their spending to the amount from the fund.

http://www.newrules.org/governance/rules/campaign-finance-reform/campaign-finance-reform-maine

Other states have “clean election” laws.

A Supreme Court decision in January 2000, Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, was the court's first ruling on campaign contributions and free speech since Buckley v. Vale. In it the court essentially reaffirmed Buckley vs. Valeo, by allowing state limits to campaign contributions, but not spending, so long as the contribution limit was not "so radical...as to...drive the sound of a candidate's voice below the level of notice, and render contributions pointless." However, the decision did counter a trend whereby federal courts have recently been striking down contribution limits even above the $1,000 (per individual) permitted in Buckley v. Valeo.
As of 2008, five states have passed "clean election" laws, laws that provide public money for state election campaigns if a candidate agrees to strict spending limits.
Maine was the first state to enact such a law, by voter referendum, in 1996.
In June 1997, Vermont became the first state to pass a bill modeled after the Maine law through its legislature. Both laws served as models for the clean election initiatives passed by Arizona and Massachusetts voters in November, 1998. The Massachusetts law, however, was repealed by the legislature in 2003. Connecticut's legislature passed a clean election bill in 2005, and it was amended in 2006 to remove an unnecessary step for third party candidates.
New Mexico expanded the program to include candidates for judgeships on the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court of New Mexico in 2007.
New Jersey's legislature passed a clean elections pilot project in 2004, which put into place two legislative districts for the November 2005 election. Following its success, three more districts have been selected to be part of the 2007 Fair and Clean Elections Pilot Project.
Out of State Contributions
Out-of-state or out-of-district campaign contributions corrupt the political process because an elected official may become more beholden to these contributors than to the community she represents. Alaska and Oregon have adopted limits on out-of-state or out-of-district contributors. Both have been overruled by federal courts as violations of the First Amendment. While the Oregon law has been repealed, the Alaska law has been suspended and is on appeal in the Alaska Supreme Court.
Because these laws so well embody the principles of localism and republicanism, the New Rules Project offers them here as models that should be reinstated.

http://www.newrules.org/governance/rules/campaign-finance-reform

All this is really great but as long as it is voluntary, in the name of free speech, I am not sure what good it all is. (By the way another thought just occurred to me. Note the Out of State restriction on Alaska's law. Maybe this is why Palin left office early? Why wait for the Alaska Supreme Court to decide. Maybe you just run from another state?)

I really do hate“Out of State Contributions”. It lets any big group, or its lobby, to select even your state and local candidates for you. Suppose you are big Energy and there is a reliable Energy candidate in some state-you will put your money where their mouth is. Now I realize too that the reverse may be true, Green Energy may like a candidate in your state or local government so they can back them.
But shouldn't each state's population be deciding their own government therefore their own laws and taxes spent. Maybe that wouldn't work either. Some would just move from a red state to a liberal blue state somewhere. Or the conservative would move to a nice red state. Actually this is happening on a small scale already. Well, one thing about it when the media draws its election forecast maps it would be easier. Or would some pay somebody else to move into the opposite view state. Hey this has the makings of a great movie or short story.
So just as the health care laws are difficult and hard to write, I can imagine the nightmare of election reform. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy and laws are, or at least should be, difficult to write. But, it may be the only chance we have to get at least some money out of the system.

For those who love charts and statistics here is an interesting site. http://www.cfinst.org/data/VitalStats.aspx

Here is a link to a “working paper”, for a forthcoming book, on campaign finance “after Obama”. The beginning sentence is an attention grabber about the total collapse of public funding for Presidential campaigns. http://www.cfinst.org/president/pdf/PresidentialWorkingPaper_April09.pdf

I highly recommend you visit Vote Smart to take a look information on Congresspersons. It is an excellent site. I thought about volunteering to work for them years ago. Very fair-minded site. http://www.votesmart.org/ I couldn't get their widget added but will try again. Also this group may be one to consider a donation if you can.

Then too maybe we just need to redefine corporations as entities when it comes to the Constitution. This will be the next post.

P.S. Note the italics on the section about the "Oregon law". I stand corrected by Dan(please see comments section). He states it is not a law it is an amendment to the Oregon Constitution and has not been repealed. Also see where they were working to change http://www.afd-pdx.org/E-mails/2009_CAMPAIGN_FINANCE_REFORM-1.html

What a mess.

As I read this morning; liberals- President Obama's supporters, are not fighting back against the mobs threatening the town-hall meetings of Congresspeople. I read there are even death threats received by some Congressmen. How do you fight that kind of mentality? I am too old and too little to brawl.

What Can Be Done?
It's time that this whole shabby (and insane) business be exposed, vilified in run out of town on a rail by whatever responsible Republicans -- if any -- that are still in the party and who want to see the fortunes of their party revived. Republican leaders taking insurance industry money via lobbying firms and using it to organize what amounts to roving bands of thugs not only need to be exposed but thrown out of the public debate forever.  They should become absolute pariahs.  

It's time to give this garbage in name: insurance industry funded fascism.
Right-Wing Turncoat Gives the Inside Scoop on Why Conservatives Are Rampaging Town Halls

By Frank Schaeffer, AlterNet. Posted August 7, 2009.

Of course Republicans aren't the only ones getting monies from the health-care big boys. But they are the ones behind most of the mobs.

Then too there are the brilliant ones at FOX news. Here is a fine example of the brilliant bulbs' work. (Be sure to read what the real story is on the great conspiracy.)
Beck conspiracy theory: "Cash for clunkers" site lets Feds control your PC, by Jed Lewison Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:32:03 AM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/1/760538/-Beck-conspiracy-theory:-Cash-for-clunkers-site-lets-Feds-control-your-PC

So all an older lazy person like me is try to put out the REAL word as best they can find anyway.

Republicans Propagating Falsehoods in Attacks on Health-Care Reform
By Steven Pearlstein
Friday, August 7, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080603854.html?hpid=news-col-blog

Here is another interesting viewpoint to read. You Do Not Have Health Insurance
Wednesday 05 August 2009by: James Kwak as posted on truthout.org.

And now in defense of President Obama in general. Let's have a little list of unimportant accomplishments for which this President is responsible.
Unemployment is slowing earlier than expected. (We know how we got the high numbers in the first place now, don't we. I don't think the present Administration caused it.)
We have a new Supreme Court Justice. (Not a right-winger either.)
The Cash for Clunkers program is working better than expected. (Now, why is it we needed it? Oh, previous administration again.)
Soldiers are leaving Iraq. (Don't blame this President if Iraq becomes a mess either. We all know how we got there.)
There are more soldiers and equipment in Afghanistan. (If you are going to have war, at least put some effort into it. Previous Administration again.)
As of yesterday the DOW was up 17% since President Obama took office. (Can we remember how we got this mess in the first place?)

So when this President is losing poll numbers, I think we have very short memories and expectations were very high when he won the election. But, read Vanity Fair, February, 2009 and you will think this guy is a gift from above. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/02/bush-oral-history200902

The right and corporate America use tactics learned from Bush's great one, Karl Rove. What a guy!
From the Vanity Fair article this quote: “I remember that Rove was out there talking at some events about how we'd use 9/11, run on 9/11 in the midterms and that it was important to do so.” (Scott McClellan) And: “Karl wasn't receptive to ideas that would've called the country to certain things and brought them to a common purpose...Karl came from a perspective of you defeat people in politics by calling one side bad and one side good.” (Matthew Dowd)

There is an article too in the issue Fannie Mae's Last Stand. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/02/fannie-and-freddie200902 . “...But, for decades, Fannie Mae had been under siege from powerful enemies, who resented its privileged status, its hard-driving C. E. O.'s, and its huge profits.”

And please don't give me the old stuff like: “That's right bring up Bush.” I will and I shall.
He is responsible for the messes with which this President is dealing. Future Presidents will be dealing with them too for a long time to come. We all will! Eight years of disasters leaving a legacy for years and years to come. I still wonder if that was the plan all along.

Are We Addicted to Arguing?

Normally, well who is to say what that means, my television is on C span for many hours a week. If not listening to Congress, I spend quite a chunk of time on-line reading about the latest political maneuvering and the “analysis” on the latest bill or the latest resolution. Or researching some “facts” mentioned somewhere. (I know,I know “get a life”).

When I listen to Congress, either house, there are many times I talk loudly to them. Sometimes I just do whatever else I am doing and say, “yeah, yadda yadda”. Lately while reading blog postings for various media outlets, I realize I am again thinking yeah, yadda yadda. The writings may differ in style from the speeches in Congress but what is written is similar. The comments actually get meaner. The extreme comments many times end up making no sense. Eventually the comments are the same “stuff” that I read many times before. “Clinton did it; Bush did it; liberals are socialists; conservatives are hardworking; the media did it; the CEO s did it; the poor did it. I have my views on all these statements but that isn't what I am questioning here.

What I wonder is do the right, left, center, and so-called independents all take lessons on what to say about what. (Actually some really do.) Is someone sitting somewhere just monitoring blogs and columns with the intent of causing a discussion to break down into angry temper tantrums? No matter which blogs I read there is such a similarity in reader comments and the patterns of comments. It usually starts with relative calm posts or comments then it begins to deteriorate.

Some comments try to use techniques that include quotations and statistics, some use the same old blame-on rants that I'm pretty sure they get from emails they receive from some political group or the other, while some try to respond in kind from their point of view. Eventually the rants win and the blog seems to just bog down in a boiling thick primordial soup. I admit it is tempting to just scream back in print at some particularly stupid rant. Just read about the first lady showing her shoulders or the President taking his coat off in the oval office.

For a short, very short, span of time after the last presidential election it was more quiet. The ranting started again since the congressional speeches, where supposedly the right “found its voice again”, got antagonistic. All the media jumped.

Both parties talk about unity turning states from one color or the other to a blended color, but they are actually encouraging behaviors that keep the electorate divided. Especially at this time when one party feels they have to “rebuild” and it is apparent they don't know how far to go for 2010 votes. Yet if you listen to their speeches you realize they are just appealing to the same groups they have before. Check out the news from CPAC. I know the other party is doing something similar after reading their appeals for money.

What happened to discourse? When did it happen? Has it always been this way and I wasn't aware of it?

I only know that it is so bad that when we do hear someone appeal to our better natures we don't trust them. Or do we just like a good fight? I got tired of watching one PBS show because it is, as I call it, the “yelling show”. The show follows the same old format 2 Conservatives, 2 Liberals, and a “moderator”. But most of the time the people on the panel are the extreme conservatives and extreme liberals. The moderator has actually changed the position from which he guides the conversation since the election. Now he rants from a different political bent.

Maybe loud rants are what we do want. Perhaps we are so afraid of the truth we don't want to hear it. Perhaps it is more fun to only hear the outrageous. When I enjoy a black and white comedy or mystery movie from the late 30's I watch them on many levels. Sometimes I just don't want to face present day reality at least for a while. Maybe that is what is going on with our political rants. We enjoy the argument more than facing reality. Reality is sometimes full of fearful monsters we cannot control by ranting at them.

I fear we are addicted to the arguments and the battles more than any real attempts at answers to our problems. Political radio, TV, and editorial rants are becoming more entertainment than help.

What a let-down when we don't have a crisis whether it is WAR, economic messes, or a religious battle of some kind. If things get too quiet we may have to face the reality of our own daily lives. Maybe we don't know what to do with it anymore. We can only shop so much whether at a charity thrift store, a large discount store, or at an exclusive shop.

Or maybe we truly are more engaged in what our government is doing than we have been in many years. That can be great but let us hope we can handle it in a civilized manner.