Confused about Polls?

Why is it everytime some dimwit like Chris Matthews or Tim Russert is faced with a new poll that has a "starting" or "troubling" result they immediately ask (some other journalist inside-baseball type) "What does this mean?" or "Help me figure out what is going on here?" There then follows lengthly unsubstantiated suppositions about what could have possibly been driving the responses.

Newsflash: Tim, Chris, et al,
Polls happen when someone called a Pollster actually asks questions, and records the responses. Polls are not entrails to be divined, nor are they some sort of astological charts to be "interpreted."

If you want to know why the poll "says" something, why don't you ask someone why they said it. You could even ask the pollster himself, although in fairness they do sometimes do this.

I find in infuriating that Matthews will look at a "poll" like this:

Hillary Clinton: How likeable is she?
Yes 39%
No 29%
No answer 30%

and somehow conclude that she has a likeability "problem."

#1 who gives a sh%t?? If some pollster asked me a question this vapid, I would poke him in the eye with a sharp stick.

#2 Why does likeability even matter? Is she running for prom queen? What about competance, experience? I suppose these kind of things only matter to the personal responsibility crowd.

#3 Just for comparison purposes, I ran my own poll. Here it is:

George Bush, likeable?
Yes 0%
no 100%*
no answer 0%

sample size, 1**, margin of error +- 1.
** me

You may insert any name of any candidate in place of George Bush since he is probably not running again. But do you get my point?

#4 Is Chris Matthews illiterate or just retarded to conclude that if the answer is 29% say a candidate in not likeable, that she has a likeability problem?

#5 I suppose it would be impossible to think about why the respondents answered a poll question they way they did. That would mean having to talk to a pleb. Much nicer to have a lovely chit chat with all your millionaire pampered elite media darlings. Who cares if it is meaningless?

The Fourth Estate: R.I.P.

I have been saying for a long time that the news media is not some honorable, glorified quasi-branch of a democratic government. It is a business and is run like a business. In fact some might say that before McLuhan coined the term 'media' it was described as The News Business. Just because it was populated with independent minded ethical individuals (I am thinking Edward R. Murrow, Cronkite and Woodword & Bernstein types here) does not mean that it is any less of a business. And business exists for one purpose only, to make a profit, something I have no doubt that William Randolph Hearst would have said.

So in that vein, here is a post from Tiny revolution that succintly and expertly says exactly what I have been saying, only much better than I can:

One thing I repeat is that the mainstream media does a FANTASTIC job. Day in and day out, they turn in an extraordinary performance—at what they exist to do. And that is to make as much money as possible.

Of course, in terms of helping people learn about the world, they are an eternal catastrophe. But why would we ever expect any different? The mainstream media is made up of gigantic corporations. Like all corporations, they manufacture a product, which is their audience. They sell this product to their customers, which are other huge corporations.

Informing people about the world is not just irrelevant to the purpose of making money, but in many ways actually HURTS a corporation's profitability. No business goes out of its way to piss off its owners and customers.

Now, obviously it's true you hear constantly about the media's Unending Fight For Truth. But you also hear constantly that a fat man wearing a red suit breaks into America's homes at the end of each year to distribute new X-boxes. Neither of these things is real.

I was thinking this when I read this statement by the perspicacious Digby:

This [the Judith Miller hoo-ha] is at its essence about a toxic political culture. The press has abdicated its responsibility to hold the powerful accountable.

I almost always think Digby is right, on every topic. But here's the thing: the press doesn't HAVE this responsibility. Gigantic corporations, by law, have one and only one responsibility, to make as much money as they possibly can.
Sure, they pretend they carry the awesome burden of holding the powerful accountable, just like Wal-Mart pretends it's deeply concerned with the well-being of its employees. And in fact, some New York Times managers may even believe they are engaged in the Unending Fight For Etc., Etc. But that doesn't change the fact that if the need for huge profits ever conflicts with holding the powerful responsible—and it will, constantly—you really shouldn't wait up.

Later, Digby wrote this about the talented Ms. Miller:

How on earth does someone this vapid become an "expert" on national security issues for the New York Times?

Again, a huge corporation like the New York Times pretends—even to itself—it wants someone smart, hard-hitting, etc. to cover national security issues. But in reality, it selects for vapidity. Judith Miller rose to the top of the New York Times not IN SPITE OF being unbearably vapid, but BECAUSE she's unbearably vapid.

Christopher Dickey of Newsweek is, I think, completely right about this:

Few newspapers, magazines or networks are willing to pay for high-priced low-volume journalism. It's so much easier--so much more cost effective--to take mass-produced information off the shelf and embellish it with a few opinions, or just to receive wisdom from the folks in power. Many critics are complaining about all the money that Judy's case has cost the Times. But maybe they're missing the point. Think of all the money she saved the Times by getting headlines day after day from top-level sources instead of working on a project year after year just to shoot those sources down.

So, progressives need to let go of the hope that the mainstream media is ever going to be much different from what it is today. We can't change much about reality if we keep hoping Santa Claus will bring us presents, because there is no Santa Claus.

Posted by Jonathan Schwarz at October 19, 2005

Bush administration fueling change for the worst in America

By Robyn Blumner
July 16, 2007

Who are we? asks filmmaker Michael Moore in the movie "Sicko." It is a question I have been asking myself lately.

Moore asks the existential question relative to the kind of society Americans have. Why don't we have a national health care system on a par with other Western democracies? Why do we allow private health insurers to insert a profit motive into denying necessary care to sick people? What is it about American culture that has tolerated and even defended this abolition of responsibility to one another?

This brought me to a larger puzzle: What is American culture? When I randomly ask people I know this question, "hot dogs" comes up with rather distressing frequency.

I think it is indisputable that this nation's greatness emanated from its cultural roots in the Enlightenment. We as a people have few outward characteristics in common, but we share a set of understandings that have largely liberated human beings to live up to their potential. This includes a fealty to reason, the rule of law, individual rights, popular sovereignty, the common good and equal opportunity. With these cornerstones, American society was built. Even as we amalgamated our cultural soup with every new wave of immigrants, we held on to those core understandings.

But these ideas almost sound quaint today. The Bush administration has done more damage to our national identity than any administration before it. You can't be a nation of equal justice when the president has eyes only for the fairness of process for loyalists like Scooter Libby. You can't have the rule of law when the vice president claims laws don't apply to him. You can't have a nation of reason when the government elevates faith and politics over fact and science. And you can't have equal opportunity or a common good when the rules are rigged to solidify ever larger gains for those at the top. Bush has substituted our Enlightenment values for his own: crass materialism (go shopping to show your love of country,) class privilege, anti-intellectualism, cronyism, religious zealotry and American exceptionalism.

Without leadership to express a conceptual vision of the best of who we are, we have moved from a nation of ideas to one of things. Creature comforts and entertainment products define American culture as much as our Constitution once did. McDonald's and Xboxes are our ambassadors. We had been drifting in this direction long before Bush came to office, but his personal and political instincts accelerated it.

This change in our national character can be laid at the feet of government. When large numbers of people suddenly feel left behind by an increasingly stratified economy, they start struggling to appear not to be among the losers. Accumulating things is one way to convince ourselves we're still ensconced in the middle class. A prize-winning book by Michael Adams on the growing differences in the values of Americans and Canadians says that Americans are becoming more self-involved, focusing on personal needs and their own survival in society rather than broader social values.

That shift is inevitable when your government no longer appears to be on your side.

Moore clues us in to how Americans have been scared off of single-payer health care, one of the government benefits that gives Canadians and Europeans great peace of mind. The medical establishment called it "socialized medicine," raising the specter of communism. Even cowboy actor Ronald Reagan was enlisted to paint it as anti-American. Its cousin, a plan for universal coverage offered during the Clinton years, was killed dead by Republicans in the service of entrenched interests.

Then Moore points to other "socialized" services that Americans have come to expect as a benefit of citizenship. Things like police and fire protection, public schools and libraries, the postal service. When we are victims of crime, we expect the government to help. Why not when we are victims of a heart attack?

Even in our romanticized past, America's go-it-alone spirit and limitless opportunity was built on the free land granted homesteaders by the government.

The original G.I. Bill helped put millions of returning veterans through college, even granting them a monthly stipend above tuition costs. When we think nostalgically of the mid-20th century, we're remembering a time when government was a partner of the middle class, protecting workers, providing an economic launching pad for success and demanding, through progressive taxation, a shared prosperity.

Who we are now is not who we were. American culture is barely definable anymore. The go-go 1980s somehow convinced us greed is good and a caring society is weak. Building on this, Bush's "ownership society" is really a "you're on your own society." It's disturbing, harmful and more than a little bit sicko.

• Blumner is a syndicated columnist. Send e-mail to blumner@sptimes.com.

If you approve of this sentiment, please send Ms. Blumner some appreciation. It is not often that I see something so salient and apt appearing in print.
Published in the Athens Banner-Herald on 07/17/07

Ms Robinson combines my love of cooking with my hatred of Right wing propaganda

-- by Sara

"The right wing has perfected the art of the great, fluffy, confectionary fantasy. They take one or two muddled factoids, add a generous gallon or two of their own scrambled preconceptions, whip it all up into an airy froth, then flash-bake in the heat of their rage until the thing inflates like a giant souffle -- which they then serve up to their media audience piping hot in the hopes that it will be completely consumed before it collapses.

The whole "lesbian gangs with pink pistols" silliness was a perfect example of this baker's art in action. At the remove of a few days, now that the whole thing has cooled into a sticky and embarrassing mess, I'd like to wind up our coverage of this with a look at the real-world facts that supported (and, ultimately, didn't support) Billoworld Baking's bizarre but fact-free confection of a story."

If this appetizer teases your palate and leaves you hungry for more, sample the rest here.

Finally, WaPo does Haircuts!

This is what I call some much needed investigative journalism. After all, there have been many obvious areas that one could investigate in the last few years, Plamegate, domestic wiretapping, Guantanamo, the missing $10 billion from the Iraq reconstruction budget, you know those pallets of cash they shipped to unknown parties, heck even most people would say the Katrina follow up isn't fully mined for tidbits of interest. But not at the WaPo! There it is all haircuts, all the time. As it should be....

Read it and weep!

Splitting Hairs, Edwards's Stylist Tells His Side of Story
Man Behind Pricey 'Dos Details Long Relationship
By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer

At first, the haircuts were free. But because Torrenueva often had to fly somewhere on the campaign trail to meet his client, he began charging $300 to $500 for each cut, plus the cost of airfare and hotels when he had to travel outside California.

Torrenueva said one haircut during the 2004 presidential race cost $1,250 because he traveled to Atlanta and lost two days of work. ... if $400 seemed a lot for a haircut, how about one for three times that? {That's a good question, Post!}

The stylist said he has a vivid memory of the first time he met Edwards, in 2003.

The Beverly Hills hairstylist, a Democrat, said he hit it off with then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina at a meeting in Los Angeles ... Since then, Torrenueva has cut Edwards's hair at least 16 times. {The start of a long beautiful gay relationship perhaps?}

"He has nice hair," the stylist said of Edwards in an interview. "I try to make the man handsome, strong, more mature and these are the things, as an expert, that's what we do."
{It does take an expert to make a democrat seem handsome or strong, doesn't it?}

"I'm disappointed and I do feel bad. If I know someone, I'm not going to say I don't know them," he said. "When he called me 'that guy,' that hit my ears. It hurt." He paused and then added, "I still like him. . . . I don't want to hurt him." {"Oh Jon, how could you do this to me?" wept Torrenueva.}

It is some kind of commentary on the state of American politics that as Edwards has campaigned for president, vice president and now president again, his hair seems to have attracted as much attention as, say, his position on health care. {That's true. I wonder just what kind of commentary it is? Perhaps, a sad commentary.}

But wait, there is more...

Torrenueva agreed to meet Edwards at the Century Plaza hotel in Los Angeles along with several fashion experts.

"There was a woman, an award-winning clothes designer -- I think she works in film and onstage, too. She was there with her swatches with materials for colors of suits, ties and what we were doing there was discussing his look. I was there for hair. {Could that have been Naomi Klein?}

"What I did was, there was too much hair on top, always falling down, and it made him look too youthful. I took the top down and balanced everything out. He couldn't see it. But then we went into the bathroom. He looked in the mirror and said, 'I love this,' and that was it."

{There is then a chronicle of all the many heartbreaking trysts to "cut hair."}

And despite the best efforts of Edwards, his wife and their campaign aides, there's been an obvious political impact. With each punch line on late night TV his image as a self-styled populist making poverty his signature issue was further eroded.
{class traitor, anyone?}

Thank goodness, the Washington Post has the journalistic credibility to finally tackle this important issue.

Stop the presses! The Post cites Aristotle and Edmund Burke!

Dear Mr. Milbank,

I had to rush to tell you of the strangest thing that happened to me this morning as I was reading the Post. I was confronted by the following offensive paragraph:

"From Aristotle to Edmund Burke, philosophers have written of the healthy tension that normally exists between the understanding and strategies of leaders and the sentiments and opinions of their people."

Aristotle? Edmund Burke? Before you know it we will be up to our ears in those weirdos Abe Lincoln and Thomas Paine! But wait, where had I heard this before?

It sounded to me like that fat, pompous windbag Al Gore was reaching into his esoteric bag of erudite tricks once again. I braced myself to begin the flagellation when I was suddenly struck by a odd happenstance.

It wasn't Gore speaking, much to my shock and dismay, it was the Post's own David Broder! Yes, that's right, Dean Broder spoke the horrid erudite words. Surely, this must be some mistake? Does the Dean think he is now The Smartest Smarty Pants in the Room? Does he think he is as smart as Gore? The Guy Who Invented the Internets?

You may want to walk across the hall and tell David to stop sounding like a pompous windbag! Hurry, before it is too late! Once those strange strange people like Aristotle and Edmund Burke are invoked it is only a matter of time before Jurgen Halbermas descends to crush us all.

Eruditely yours,
V. Publius

Milbank goes fourth!

Dear Mr. Milbank,
Kudos!

While I had thought it impossible to exceed the vapidity of your Washington Sketch entitled "Is it wise to be so smart?" from the May 30 edition of the Washington Post, your recent Sketch from June 28th, awkwardly entitled "Bill Had His Al, and Hillary Might Have Her Bill" has heroically triumphed!

Once again our intrepid reporter finds himself assailed by speeches in which "words such as "fissionable" and "Abrahamic dialogue" were invoked." How vexing! Yet all was not lost. At least the "speech was in a gilded ballroom of the Willard hotel, where waiters served roasted chicken and orzo salad at tables decorated with blue hydrangeas coordinated with the candidate's blue pantsuit." Thank goodness, at least there was something coordinated and appetizing about this miserable and tedious excursion.

Yet all was not well in Versailles! Some poor souls actually had to endure the indignity of "plastic boxes containing tuna sandwiches and bags of potato chips." "Balanced on their laps," no less. Quel damage!

And what a speech it was! Detestably it "occupied nine single-spaced pages and had the warning "3,325 words" at the top." The odious speech "lulled the crowd of 200 into utter silence. Eyelids drooped. Listeners shifted in their seats." How vexing. How utterly tedious! I am sure it was very tiresome indeed for our intrepid reporter. Why, don't they know you could have been out playing tennis instead. How discourteous! How unsolicitous!

I do wish to thank you for enduring this in our stead and reporting only the kernel of the tiresome ordeal and sparing our delicate sensibilities from the inexhaustible details. What could one possibly need to know about a speech which "laid out this great policy, a lot of intricate detail, to a bunch of policy wonks?" Why simply the highlights, darling, such as these "bon mots:" "I revert back to the Nunn-Lugar initiatives, which have been underfunded," and "the IAEA naturally has the lead on nuclear issues," and "there are at least six major reasons why Iran is strategically significant."" In fact, "He could be heard to utter phrases such as" these. No need to bother us with what those six tiresome reasons could possibly be. At least we were served up a few delectable "bon mots," the most appealing of which was no doubt the long denied "in conclusion."

My esteemed Mr. Milbank, once again, the Nation owes you a debt of gratitude for sparing us the noxious details of what are clearly boring policy speeches that last the entirety of "a detailed, hour long discussion." How can our poor brains be expected to retain focus for an entire hour? It is simply too ghastly. It defies time itself. "Tonight? This afternoon." The mind boggles.

Please do yourself a favor and get out of this business before it damages your health.

Admiringly yours,
V. Publius

Dana Milbank is a simpleton

Dear Mr. Milbank,
I am still trying to wrap my brain around your recent offering "Is it
wise to be so smart?" from the May 30 edition of the paper.

Apart for your kooky imaginings of Iowa hog farmers, references to the
great thinkers of our age, like "Schwartz from Germantown" and
thinking Abe Lincoln is somehow "esoteric", there really wasn't much
of the actual Gore book presented. In fact, I think you were able to
summarize (incorrectly) the whole thesis of the book in about one
sentence. Here it is: "The Bush administration has manipulated the
facts on the Iraq war and a range of other policies, the public has
been easily manipulated, and Americans watch too much television."

Brilliant!

Would you like to see how a real journalist might do it? Someone who
is literate perhaps?

Someone who knows the difference between Adam Smith and Thomas
Jefferson? Someone with a nodding acquiantance with learning or
history or facts? Well, here for the record is Jonathan Alter over at
Newsweek:

"Gore starts from a trenchant premise that our means of processing
information and finding rational solutions are badly corrupted by
television, a theme he has been exploring since college. Without any
misplaced nostalgia for a pre-TV age, he argues that the "marketplace
of ideas" that grew out of the rise of the printed word and the
Enlightenment has been largely supplanted by a medium best suited to
stoking fear, which is, he notes, "the most powerful enemy of reason."
The human mind, Gore writes, is now nearly hard-wired to respond to
emotional but fundamentally trivial human-interest stories on TV."
(Or apparently also in the Post.)

You can read the rest here, and you should.

Isn't it amazing the way he organizes words so that they form coherent
thoughts? And that the thoughts he writes actually have something to
do with the book he is discussing?

You may need to consult a dictionary for some of the difficult or
"erudite" words, like "trenchant", "premise" and "supplanted". You
should not feel ashamed to do so. Writers should know what words
mean. Also, "medium" here refers to a means of conveying information,
not something of middle size.

But you will eventually get the hang of it. Keep trying.

Trenchantly yours,
V. Publius

P.S. I cannot possibly improve on Jonathan Alter's review of The Assault on Reason, however, I would like to quote just one brief passage that occurs on page 248:

"I believe that the viability of democracy depends upon the openness, reliability, appropriateness, responsiveness, and two-way nature of the communications environment. After all, democracy depends upon the regular sending and receiving of signals -- not only between the people and those who aspire to be their elected representatives but also among the people themselves. It is the connection of each individual to the national conversation that is the key. I believe that the citizens of any democracy learn, over time, to adopt a basic posture toward the possibilities of self-government. ... My generation learned in our youth to expect that democracy would work. ... Many young Americans now seem to feel that the jury is out on whether American democracy actually works or not."

Crass, self-centered, pedantic, smug, erudite, and esoteric
or
cogent, clear, straight-forward, prescient, compelling and principled?

I ask you.

Bravo Mika!

As a frequent Morning Joe viewer, all I can say is "Bravo!" to correspondent Mika Brzezinski for her principled refusal to talk about Paris Hilton on Morning Joe. It is a credit to MSNBC that such reporters exist and are allowed to express their distain for the obvious trivia and pointlessness that pervades many so called "news" broadcasts. She should receive the Medal of Freedom, she has won a great victory for freedom of the press, particularly freedom from trivia. At this critical juncture in American history, when crucial decisions are being made with little or no public input and awareness, there are many more important things to be discussed. It will go down as our everlasting shame that while Rome burned, we fiddled. Bravo Mika!

Prime Cuts

On Page 118 of Al Gore's The Assault on Reason, we read;

"We know from documents obtained in discovery proceedings against [the] Cheney Energy Task Force, by the odd combination of the conservative group Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club, that one of the documents that was receiving scrutiny by the task force during ... [the run up to the start of the war] was a highly detailed map of Iraq -- showing none of the cities, none of the places where people lived, but showing in great detail the location of every single oil deposit known to exist in the country, with dotted lines demarcating blocks for promising exploration -- a map that, in the words* of a Canadian journalist, resembled a butcher's drawing of a steer with the prime cuts delineated by dotted lines."

* "Cheney Energy Task Force Documents Feature Map of Iraqi Oilfields" July 17, 2003. www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf

Which put me in mind of:

"On the wall a chart shows an outline of a steer, like a map covered with frontier lines that mark off the areas of consuming interest, involving the entire anatomy of the animal except only horns and hoofs. The map of the human habitat is this, no less than the planisphere of the planet; both are protocols that should sanction the rights man has attributed to himself, of possession, division, and consumption without residue of the terrestrial continents and of the loins of the animal body."

Italo Calvino "Marble and Blood." Mr. Palomar. Pg. 77.

Guiliani brays like jackass, but more annoying reports NY Times

John McCain proves he is irrelevent, possibly racist, nazi

In the annals of uncritical reporting, this one is yet another indication that John McCain (aka Senator McFudd) is increasingly irrelevent, has a tin-ear, Nazi sympathies and is possibly a racist.

From noted "assasination" website, Media Matters:

Obama, responding in part to McCain's criticism of his recent Iraq war vote, issued a May 25 press release arguing that "the course we are on in Iraq" is not "working." Obama said "a reflection of that [is] the fact that Senator McCain required a flack jacket" and other military protection when walking through a Baghdad market during a trip to Iraq in April. In a response the same day, McCain took issue with Obama's spelling: "By the way, Senator Obama, it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket."

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "flak" as:

Main Entry: flak
Variant(s): also flack \flak\

1: antiaircraft guns
2: the bursting shells fired from flak
3: also flack : criticism, opposition

Thereby entirely demolishing Senator Fudd's argument in the time it takes to look up one word. But more telling, to me anyway, is the etymology of the word.

Etymology: German, from Flugabwehrkanonen, from Flieger (flyer) + Abwehr (defense) + Kanonen (cannons)
Date: 1938

So, John McCain clearly prefers the Nazi spelling, even though the word has been incorporated into the English language. Hmmm, troubling.

Not only does Senator Fudd correct the spelling of his esteemed African-American collegue, he does it incorrectly. Troubling, indeed.

UPDATE: The New York Daily News is reporting:

An unnamed McCain aide piled on, telling the Politico Web site that "Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."

I thought that had to be a joke when I first heard it.

So Senator "Grampa" McFudd thinks an effective rebuttal to criticism on the Iraq War is to critique the spelling??? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!!?

Gut Check Time!

It is me, or does this strike you as just a lil' bit fascist-y?



It's MSNBC's new reader talk-back forum.
Not surprisingly it is full of all the usual
excrement.

Ok, how about this then?

Small Change

I was struggling yesterday to identify what it is about the upcoming "change" election that has me filled with trepidation. It was sparked by the tidbit I caught on the radio about the Iraq Funding Bill. The moderator (ABC News Radio) opened by saying -- "Democrats reach compromise on Iraq war funding bill, no timelines for US troop withdrawals, benchmarks for the Iraqi government, Democratic leadership says this is not a defeat, then a soundbite of Harry Reid saying "we don't have the votes to overturn a veto so its a cinch we won't get what we want, but this is pretty good."

My first thought was, if I was the Democratic strategist, I would have played this differently. Something like this:

"I regretfully inform the American people that we failed you today in the US Congress. We failed to obtain from the Republicans any compromise on ending this pointless and costly war. We failed to place any restrictions on this President's reckless and wanton deployment of our troops. We failed to obtain timetables for their return home. We failed to prevent their tours of duty from being extended. Because this President and the Republican party refuse to concede to reality and instead cling stubbornly to a hopeless strategy, we have failed to carry out the clear will of the American people, to do what they sent us here to do in November.

Now 78% of the American people believe we are on the wrong track in this country and a majority agree that a military solution t this war is no longer possible. To date the surge is not turning the tide, but rather putting even more troops into harms way. Because this President's callous disregard for the will of the electorate and his repeated threat to abuse his veto power and overturn any bill which includes any measure of accountability for his administration and its abysmal war strategy, we are left with no choice. We could prolong this stalemate, but we lack the votes necessary to overturn a veto, because the Republicans in Congress are more concerned with loyalty to their party and their President, then they are with concern for our soldiers or respct for the will of the American people.

We, the Democratic majority in the House and Senate, out of concern for the troops that have been and now will continue to be deployed in Iraq for the foreseeable future, have agreed to put their interests first and extend funding to ensure that they will have the resources necessary. However we strongly object to this President's failed plan, his continued reckless unaccountability and the abuse of his veto power in the face of overwhelming support by the American people to put limits on the duration of our troops occupation of Iraq."

I cannot figure out what is accomplished by spinning an obvious loss as something of a compromise. It just makes the Democrats look weak. I also can't help but notice that whenever the war is called into question, Republicans keep saying, "if you want to end it so bad cut off the funding. Why do you keep funding it?" Acquiescence is tacit approval and that is the way all of the '08 candidates are going to be taken apart. "You were for it before you were against it."

Then this morning I happened to come across this at TomDispatch:

As Andrew Bacevich, author of The New American Militarism, puts it: "None of the Democrats vying to replace President Bush is doing so with the promise of reviving the system of check and balances.... The aim of the party out of power is not to cut the presidency down to size but to seize it, not to reduce the prerogatives of the executive branch but to regain them."

Or as Dave Lindorff puts it:

"Why is the party leadership blocking impeachment? Machivellian self-interest. They don’t care about their oaths of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. All they care about is winning re-election in 2008, and they have come to the conclusion that the Republicans are in such bad shape that by doing nothing or next to nothing but talking a good game from now to November ‘08, they can win, whereas if they take any decisive action, whether halting funding for the war or initiating impeachment hearings, they might hurt themselves."

I think that is a good explanation for why the party of change sounds an awful lot like the party of same ole, same ole. Click here for more.

Republicans weak on planning.

I'm only going to write letters to the paper about the Fairness Doctrine (which I will talk about more later), so here's one I tried to get in a week or two ago that didn't fly with the editor.

REPUBLICANS WEAK ON PLANNING

To quote former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you [want]." This is a true statement, but I think Rumsfeld and the rest of the war hawks missed its implications. You only go to war if the army you have can achieve preset victory conditions.

If clear victory conditions had been set when we went to war in 2003, I have no doubt that our troops would have achieved them. But the point of this war has been as deceptive and unclear as its justification. Conservative apologists try to rationalize around every fact, but they can't obscure the poor planning behind this war any longer.

Planning is what wins wars, not rhetoric. And I hear a lot of rhetoric on the right about "victory" and "winning," but, by their actions, conservatives and their Republican representatives have shown the American people that they never had the competence to take this nation to war. That is why the preferred Republican course of action now is to do nothing. What is more ineffectual and weak than refusing to change to meet the circumstances?

Our sons and daughters are being sacrificed for no good reason, and the message from President Bush and his supporters is clear: If you don't like it, shut up and sit by while we let even more soldiers die. Well, I think that's unreasonable and, frankly, disgraceful.

Getting to Know MORA

Media Ownership Reform Act
(Upcoming Legislation to Restore the Fairness Doctrine)
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY22)

Rep. Hinchey's Website


Bill Summary

I. Guarantees Fairness in Broadcasting

Our airwaves are a precious and limited commodity that belong to the general public. As such, they are regulated by the government. From 1949 to 1987, a keystone of this regulation was the Fairness Doctrine, an assurance that the American audience would be guaranteed sufficiently robust debate on controversial and pressing issues. Despite numerous instances of support from the U.S. Supreme Court, President Reagan's FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and a subsequent bill passed by Congress to place the doctrine into federal law was then vetoed by Reagan.



MORA would amend the 1934 Communications Act to restore the Fairness Doctrine and explicitly require broadcast licensees to provide a reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.



II. Restores Broadcast Ownership Limitations



Nearly 60 years ago, the Supreme Court declared that "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is essential to the condition of a free society." And yet, today, a mere five companies own the broadcast networks, 90 percent of the top 50 cable networks, produce three-quarters of all prime time programming, and control 70 percent of the prime time television market share. One-third of America's independently-owned television stations have vanished since 1975.



There has also been a severe decline in the number of minority-owned broadcast stations; minorities own a mere four percent of stations today.



* MORA would restore a standard to prevent any one company from owning broadcast stations that reach more than 35 percent of U.S. television households.

* The legislation would re-establish a national radio ownership cap to keep a single company from owning more than five percent of our nation's total number of AM and FM stations.
* The bill would reduce local radio ownership caps to limit a single company from owning more than a certain number of stations within a certain broadcast market, with the limit varying depending upon the size of each market.
* Furthermore, the legislation would restore the Broadcast-Cable and Broadcast-Satellite Cross-Ownership Rules to keep a company from aving conflicting ownerships in a cable company and/or a satellite carrier and a broadcast station offering service in the same market.
* Finally, MORA would prevent media owners from grandfathering their current arrangement into the new system, requiring parties to divest in order to comply with these new limitations within one year.



III. Invalidates Media Ownership Deregulation



MORA would invalidate the considerably weakened media ownership rules that were adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 2003; rules that are now under new scrutiny through the FCC's Future Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The legislation further prevents the FCC from including media ownership rules in future undertakings of the commission's Biennial Review Process.



IV. Establishes a New Media Ownership Review Process



MORA creates a new review process, to be carried by the FCC every three years, on how the commission's regulations on media ownership promote and protect localism, competition, diversity of voices, diversity of ownership, children's programming, small and local broadcasters, and technological advancement. The bill requires the FCC to report to Congress on its findings.



V. Requires Reports for Public Interest



MORA requires broadcast licensees to publish a report every two years on how the station is serving the public interest. The legislation also requires licensees to hold at least two community public hearings per year to determine local needs and interests.





Source: Rep. Maurice Hinchey's (D-NY 22) House Website

Bill Text

Some "Fair Tax" Insight

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee praised a "fair tax" without noting what it actually would do: impose a stiff retail sales tax on all goods and services sold in the U.S., easing the tax burden on the richest Americans:

Huckabee: "If we had a fair tax, it would eliminate not just the alternative minimum tax, personal income tax, corporate tax, it would eliminate all the various taxes that are hidden in our system, and Americans don't realize what they're paying."

Huckabee isn't the only GOP presidential candidate endorsing the "fair tax" proposal. Reps. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are among the 60 House and Senate cosponsors listed by "Americans For Fair Taxation," which backs the proposal.

Whether it is "fair" or not is of course a matter of opinion. The "fair tax" does propose a "prebate," which would soften its impact on low-income persons, in the form of a monthly check equivalent to the amount of tax paid up to the poverty level, which varies according to family size. But any sales tax also would lower taxes for those upper-income persons who save and invest large portions of income that would be taxed under current law — but not under the "fair tax."

In fact, President Bush's bipartisan Advisory Panel on Tax Reform rejected the idea, saying it would substantially increase taxes for 80 percent of U.S. taxpayers while benefiting those at the top. The panel calculated that a sales tax would have to be set at 34 percent of retail sales prices to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace, meaning that an automobile with a retail price of $10,000 would cost $13,400 including the new sales tax. Furthermore, the panel said, a monthly cash rebate to every American would amount to the largest entitlement program in history, costing approximately $600 billion to $780 billion per year and making most American families dependent on monthly checks from the federal government for a substantial portion of their incomes.

From Factcheck.org

Lou Dobbs sinks even lower

Dear Mr. Dobbs,
I for one would like to applaud your foray into this brave (and mostly) unexplored new world of journalism ... just making shit up!

The Southern Poverty Law center reports that you are spreading stories that immigrants are bringing leprosy to America, and concocting numbers to support your position. I even heard you say to Leslie Stahl "Well, I can tell you this. If we report it, it's a fact." and "Because I'm the managing editor, and that's the way we do business, We don't make up numbers, Lesley. Do we?"

Unfortunately, it seems like you pinched your numbers from a far-right nutcase named Madeleine Cosman.In addition to writing about the prevalence of leprosy, Cosman, who died in March 2006, told an anti-immigrant conference in 2005 that "most" Latino immigrant men "molest girls under 12, although some specialize in boys, and some in nuns," a variation on a speech she has given elsewhere.Madeleine Cosman's false claim that there were 7,000 cases of leprosy diagnosed in the United States from 2001 to 2004 was included in her article, "Illegal Aliens and American Medicine." More than once, "Lou Dobbs Tonight" reporter Romans repeated Cosman's statistic, saying, "Suddenly, in the past three years, America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy."

Cosman's piece was published in the Spring 2005 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which represents private practice doctors. The journal is known as a right-wing periodical whose science has been the subject of harsh criticism.

Though the article notes her Ph.D., it does not say that the degree is in English and comparative literature. Cosman had no medical training other than as a medical lawyer.

In the article, Cosman provides no source for her claim of 7,000 cases of leprosy, also known as Hansen's Disease, in three years — presumably 2001 to 2004, given the article's publication date.

The claim has no basis in fact.

But please don't let that stop you from continuing to say it and defend your actions. You should probably start conferring with Dan Rather over how well his career has progrsssed using fictious sources.Keep up the demagogery, Lou.

Sincerely,
V. Publius



Please let Lou know what you think of this at lou.dobbs@turner.com


Thanks to Orcinus and Media Matters for providing some timely quotes, research and general factcheckery.

Alan Colmes On the Air

Alan Colmes, the quiet one, on Fox's Hannity & Colmes has his own radio show in the coveted timeslot of 10 pm to 1 am weeknights. When he is unfettered from Hannity, he is surprisingly good. I have listened to him eviscerate several stupid right-wing conservatarians over issues like gun control. He has a keen intellect and has honed his sparring technique from being Hannity's punching bag for so long. Also, I think there must be a litte "revenge is sweet" going on there.

He describes himself as "progressive," however, it is not just a one man blab fest, like Rimbaugh or Billo...

From www.alan.com (how's that for an easy-to-remember url?):

"Every viewpoint is welcome. In our “Friday-Night-Free-For-All” you, the listeners, get to choose the topics. Remember, Alan ends every night with his trademark one sentence and one sentence only, “Radio Graffiti!” You've gotta be quick, though.

There are several phone lines at 1-877-367-2526, which are normally occupied by callers from across America all night long. The Alan Colmes Show tries to get as many of you on air as possible. Sometimes it’s a long wait, but everyone says it’s worth it because you really are given the opportunity to present your opinion."

Actually all of the callers I have heard so far I would classify as "right wing," and Colmes does not just shut them off, he duels with them until they are (even more) tired and befuddled than they were when the called. When was the last time you saw Rimbaugh do that? The only calls he takes are from the ditto-heads.

I Hate Sean Hannity

While this is a true representation of my opinion, it also happens to be the name of a very good website which monitors and chronicles Hannity's hate speech/idiocy.

Here is a sample:

"Here is the secret formula for an hour of a Hannity radio broadcast:

1. Bring up a news point (1 minute)
2. Complain about how the liberal-biased media has taken it out of proportion (14 minutes)
3. Whine about how liberals are ruining the country, even if it has nothing to do with the news story (45 min)

Try it! I've put a clock to him over and over again. He is trying like crazy to become famous for being more outrageous than Ann Coulter. Forget it Sean, she has something you'll never have. Balls."

I made the mistake of listening to Sean "interview" Bernard McGurk (sp?) from the Imus program, the other day. It was an insensible diatribe against "political correctness" and an exercise in misdirection and also sour grapes. McGurk seemed to feel "we treated everyone the same," Irish, Catholic, Jew, black, women, etc. and he proceeded to prove it by reading as many offensive racist and hateful "jokes" as he could in 15 minutes. He also said it was "a locker-room mentality." I am not sure why he felt that this was somehow exonerating him.

When I say that he said these two things, I mean it! He must have said them each two dozen times, sometimes strung together and peppered with disgusting jokes like this: " Why don't Iraqis get circumcised? So they have a place to hide their chewing gum during a sandstorm." Lovely.

The actual Hannity website is here. I noticed that they are on the ABC Radio network. When I visited it, the banner was showing an ad for Pepto-Bismol, ironically.

He also mentioned that there are two call in lines the regular line (3-6PM EST)
800.941.7326 and the "Hate Hannity" line, "if you are a liberal." I can't find the Hate Hannity Hotline # on the website. Too bad. I will keep looking.

Politicizing Government Service (by Raum Emanuel)

(Guys, I'm working on something lengthier at the moment, but here's an excellent article by Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. These remarks were prepared for delivery Wednesday at a forum hosted by The Brookings Institution.)

Politicizing Government Service
by Ralph Emanuel

I don't think politics is a dirty word. (And, those of you who know me know that I am very knowledgeable when it comes to dirty words.) Politics is a vital and essential element of our political system—the vehicle by which we advance our governing principles and policies.

Believe me, I'm not naïve. President Clinton made me a top aide in the White House not because of my good looks or charm—and not because I was a top policy expert. No, I got to the White House the same way he did: through politics. I am not one who believes you can ever fully divorce politics from policy in a democracy. It would be like trying to do physics without math. Yet I've also always recognized that there is a balance; that we should never allow the basic functions and solemn responsibilities of government to be subjugated to or take a backseat to politics or party interests.

President Bush came to the White House with an entirely different understanding.

MORE HERE

Randall Tobias, Murderer, Resigns.

(Randall Tobias wins the "Norm Weatherby Memorial Douchebag Award" for the month of April.)



This man is named Randall L. Tobias. He was the first U.S. Director of Foreign Assistance, and served concurrently as the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). He is also a murderer.

In his capacity as Director of Foreign Assistance, Tobias encouraged sexual abstinence, and discounted the use of condoms in preventing HIV/AIDS. "Statistics show that condoms really have not been very effective," Tobias told a news conference in Berlin on April 21, 2004. (1) This is a blatant lie, and flies in the face of all credible scientific study of HIV/AIDS.

On April 27, 2007, Tobias immediately resigned after being asked about an upscale escort service involved in prostitution by ABC News. Within minutes of his resignation, Tobias's biography was removed from the USAID website. State Department officials declined to comment on the reasons for Tobias's resignation. (2)

So far, 32 million Africans have died from HIV/AIDS. 47 million Africans are infected with HIV/AIDS. In the time it took you to read this article, 5 Africans have died from HIV/AIDS, and 11 Africans have contracted HIV/AIDS. (3)

Condoms drastically reduce the chances of contracting AIDS. In Cambodia and Thailand, the slowing increase of AIDS contraction and decreasing STD incidence is credited to increased condom usage. In 2005, the UN's special envoy on fighting AIDS in Africa accused the U.S. of endangering the gains Uganda has made in containing the disease, directly due to pressure from the U.S. and from Bush appointee Tobias.

(How is this any different than the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, except for the fact that even more people are dying?)

As one of those directly responsible for pressuring countries and organizations in Africa to decrease condom education and usage, Randall Tobias is responsible for the infection of thousands and thousands of Africans with HIV/AIDS. Most, if not all, of them will die.

Republican policies have consequences. We ignore many of those consequences because it isn't happening here, and it's easy to play "nobody really knows how to make HIV/AIDS stop spreading" when you're just looking at "opinions." But it isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

This is what Republicans do, and to my eyes, it's no better than genocide.

Please e-mail USAID about their employment and policy choices.

Why It Isn’t About Hip-Hop.

I continue to maintain that there is a distinct difference between Don Imus and the hip-hop community.

Imus is a member of what we vaguely call "the opinion media." Both he and the discussion about his use of racist language could have opened a valuable doorway into a discussion about that very same opinion media and its many other members (i.e. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc). We progressives, instead of leaping at this chance to hold conservative broadcasters accountable for comparable language, have gotten sidetracked into discussing an important, but unrelated, issue.

When I've pointed this out, or tried to articulate the difference between Imus and the hip-hop community, conservatives have attacked me for being a "reverse racist" and progressives have questioned me for having a "double standard" and possibly also for apologizing for offensive and reprehensible lyrics.

Progressives, listen to me: You're missing the point for the principle.

There isn't one, single standard by which we judge all things, simply using more or less intensity in our focus. We have different standards for different things, and this is right and proper. Let's look at a different example. We all know the difference between murdering a person for profit and accidentally killing a person. Our judgment of the matter would reflect that difference. "Fairness" is not some catch-all criterion, where we judge even similar matters irrespective of context or intent.

And the difference between Don Imus and the hip-hop community isn't even a subtle one. It's an obvious and apparent difference. Changing the topic from Imus to hip-hop isn't even a coherent subject change. They are tenuously linked by the topic of racism, but that is, as you know, a very wide topic involving many different things.

The issues raised by Imus and hip-hop, respectively, are also quite different. Imus, as a representative of that opinion media, opens up avenues into a discussion revolving around the accountability of opinion jockeys and what they say on air. Regardless of Imus's political affiliations or (waning) popularity, he falls into the same class of broadcasters as do others such as Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Savage. These people have a tremendous amount of influence on the political discourse, and a discussion about them and the hate-speech they use would be both important and beneficial to progressive ends. Hip-hop raises issues about our standards for entertainment, for lyrical content. It does raise some issues for the African-American community (as well as, I might add, the suburban white teenaged community, which may consume up to 71% of mainstream "gangster" rap), as well as a variety of more general cultural issues.

What I hope to establish by pointing out the differences, in a variety of contexts, between Imus and the hip-hop community is simply to establish that they are, in fact, different, and, regarding the issues they lead to, not even related, save by the most tenuous of reasoning. By accepting and promulgating the false idea that they are the same, we as progressives have missed out on a valuable opportunity.

You might be wondering why, if Imus and hip-hop aren't even related issues, we even ending up talking about hip-hop at all, and a very simple answer to that question.

Conservatives don't want to talk about media accountability.

So rather than taking the Imus dialogue in its natural direction, they jumped the train onto a completely different set of tracks. Hip-hop (and gangster rap in particular) provides the perfect foil for conservatives to direct attention to, while deferring responsibility from themselves, whenever issues regarding language usage arise. (and choosing hip-hop to derail…) Derailing the discussion by throwing hip-hop into the mix was very effective, simply because nobody is going to defend gangster rap. Also, while pointing out the disconnect between Imus and hip-hop has nothing to do with apologizing for gangster rap, it's easy to paint it as if it were.

Hip-hop is a subject that we need to discuss, but there’s a time and place for everything. It simply isn't relevant to the “Don Imus discussion,” and it isn't relevant to the political discourse that Imus and the other opinion media figures influence and contribute to. The doorway to discussing media accountability is not the appropriate doorway to discussing hip-hop, and following (and even defending) that rhetorical direction is not beneficial to progressive ends. When we switched topics, we fell for conservative bait-and-switch tactics yet again.

Conservatives always pull this same trick, and we progressives always fall for it. We know that hip-hop is a topic we should discuss, and they use that against us. We need to wake up and start pushing conversations in the right direction, rather than being led around by the nose.

Control of the civil discourse is the key to political power.

Political Deformation.

"Their foot shall slide in due time; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste." - Deuteronomy 32:35

I don't have much respect for voting electorates around the world. Almost without exception, they are fickle and easily mislead by charismatic, pandering sociopaths. Foremost in my mind over the past few weeks has been French fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen. The French electorate used to vote predominantly on the left, and the communist and socialist parties held the loyalty of the working class. It is that very same base we see now swinging over in support of Nicolas Sarkozy, this election year's president candidate from the conservative Union for a Popular Movement (UMP).

You might wonder why it is Le Pen who is on my mind, rather than Sarkozy. It is irrelevant that Le Pen hasn't ever won a French election worth mentioning. The fact that he has at times been considered a viable candidate shows that France has been moving steadily to the right for some years. And Le Pen has been bullying the country in that direction since he founded his National Front movement in 1972.

France is now considered the most conservative country in continental Europe, but I don't think France is shifting right because of the changing principles of its citizenry. As usual, the electorate is easily led by the nose by anyone "new" and controversial. That's why the leftist parties of the 1960s were so popular, and it was the progressivism of the left that allowed those parties to maintain political control in France for so long. After the left became the status quo, slick vultures like Sarkozy and Le Pen were there to offer "salvation." Considering France's track record on issues like racism, I'm surprised it's taken so long for the right to develop into something worth taking seriously.

Le Pen provides the French political discourse with a strong directive force. By voicing the most racist and exclusionary rhetoric allowable (up to and including tacit Holocaust denial), Le Pen has given the basest of opinions a "face," and thereby made each of those opinions a little more acceptable for the everyday citizen to express.

He points out the flaws in the political system as it stands (such as the corruption of Chirac) and promises change for France. In the end, while he has little chance of succeeding in his presidential gambit (as has been shown again and again, every time he has run), he shifts French politics to right, and makes it a little more acceptable for other politicians to voice right-wing rhetoric. And here, in 2007, we see Nicolas Sarkozy appear as a viable threat to the Socialist Party.

Le Pen and Sarkozy present themselves as if they are "new" alternatives, but they are nothing of the sort. Their kind is as old as mankind. We've always had wannabe dictators and resentful authoritarians looking to weasel their way to the top, looking to get revenge for past failures. Look at Adolf Hitler (failed artist), or Richard Nixon (failed lawyer), or George W. Bush (failed businessman). They will always repackage themselves, redrafting their image right on the cutting edge of contemporary anxieties, like terrorism and immigration reform.

Appealing to people's basest instincts and to their fears always gets votes, especially when that appeal is wrapped in the national flag. It's what's been happening in the United States for the past six years, after all. Why should anyone be surprised that it's happening in France now? Even if Mz. Royale achieves victory in the runoff election on May 6, I'm not sure that I have confidence in her ability to handle the increasingly Americanized press tactics of the French tabloids. Her performance, if elected, will be key to the direction of French political discourse in the near future.

Political reform is always effected by highlighting problems in the current political system and promising to change it for the better. People's utopian hopes, regardless of how unfocused, provide ample field for politicians of any stripe to till. The thrust for change is always effective when offered after a time of stagnation. Unfortunately, it seems that, given enough time, left-wing governments will begin to stagnate, but we must always remember that, given any time whatsoever, a right-wing government will damage the well-being of its nation. So, while the right may be making a "comeback" in France, history informs us it will be a temporary one. I only hope the damage to France isn't as devastating as it has been here in the United States.

Pew Report: Americans Undergoing a Shift in Values

It can be argued that Republican control of Congress came about in 1994 because Americans underwent a change in attitudes and values that brought them closer to what the Republican Party supposedly stood for. This shift led to twelve years of Republican control in Congress, which came to a screeching halt in November 2006.

But was it simply the result of an unpopular president and an advantageous political environment? A new poll by the PEW Research Center suggests that the 2006 election was not a sheer anomaly but the beginning of a nationwide shift in values and concerns back to those of the Democratic Party.

The latest Pew Research Center poll, conducted December 2006–January 2007, shows a massive exodus from the GOP. According to the poll, 50 percent of respondents now align themselves with the Democrats, while just 35 percent align themselves with the GOP.

What this shows is that the American public—specifically independents—are undergoing a change in values and attitudes that favors the Democrats, not that the members of the party are bringing about this change with their actions thus far.

Some other results:

According to the Pew poll, more Americans now believe that the government should care for those who can't care for themselves and should help the needy even if it means going further into debt.

As the GOP continues to try to preserve tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and claims that the economy is booming for all Americans, the poll shows that the public has lost faith in the Republicans' economic policy. The poll shows that 73 percent of people now believe that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

American attitudes about foreign policy appear to be changing following endless blunders by the Bush administration, as Americans are becoming more skeptical of the value of military strength as a peacemaking tool.

Another important aspect of changing American values indicated by the Pew poll is the deteriorating religious fervor of the American public. For example, the poll finds greater public acceptance of homosexuality and less desire that women play only their traditional role in the household.

For more visit www.ncec.org

Shorter Jonah Goldberg: Americans are stupid, leave governing to us

This is an excerpt from Jonah Goldberg's latest column, which ran in the ABH (4/28/2007) edition. After citing polls and other research that shows that Americans are woefully uninformed about political matters -- "huge numbers of Americans don't know jack about their government or politics" -- he then proceeds to explain why polls are really a bad thing anyway.

------------------------

"That the public mood is a poor compass for guiding the ship of state is an old lament. Here are two reasons why.

The first has to do with the laziness, spinelessness and vanity of political elites. Citing polls as proof you're on the right side of an argument often is a symptom of intellectual cowardice. If the crowd says two plus two equals seven, that's no reason to invoke the authority of the crowd. But pundits and politicians know that if they align themselves with the latest Gallup findings, they don't have to defend their position on the merits because "the people" always are right. Such is the seductiveness of populism. It means never being wrong. "The people of Nebraska are for free silver, and I am for free silver," proclaimed William Jennings Bryan. "I will look up the arguments later."

Which brings us to ideology. The days when politicians would actually defend small-r republicanism are gone. The answer to every problem in our democracy seems to be more democracy, as if any alternative spells more tyranny. Indeed, once more the "forces of progress" are trying to destroy the Electoral College in the name of democracy. Their beachhead is Maryland, which was the first to approve an interstate compact promising its electors to whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote.

If these progressives have their way, we'll soon see candidates ignoring small states and rural areas entirely because democracy means going where the votes are. The old notion that this is a republic in which minority communities have a say will suffer perhaps the final, fatal blow.

But that's OK, because 70 percent of Americans say they're for getting rid of the Electoral College. And Lord knows, they must be right."

Goldberg, editor-at-large for National Review Online, is also a syndicated columnist. Send e-mail to JonahsColumn@aol.com

--------------

So if I am following this, electing a president is not about how many people actually vote for him, because it isn't a popularity contest. Therefore small states and rural areas (that have no people in them, like N. Dakota and Wyoming) would be ignored in favor of "going where the votes are." I cannot imagine that by "small states" Jonah is lamenting the fate of Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland and New Hampshire. No, not at all. By "small states and rural areas" he means those large, empty expanses out West, that are inflicted with low populations. Incidentally what is the basis of awarding electoral votes based on geographic territories?

Make no mistake here, there are more progressives in this country than republicans. The recent Pew Center report shows that 50% of the country now identifies itself as Democrat versus 35% who identify as Republican. This is a shameful attempt to simultaneously insult American voters as stupid while jury-rigging an archaic institution to continue to "protect small-r republicanism" whatever in the hell that is! Just further evidence, along with chronic vote-tampering and electoral shenanigans, that republicans hate democracy. He even manages to cast democracy itself as a bad thing! Simply incredible. I have never seen such bald-faced anti-Americanism!

Dear Mr. O'Reilly,

I wanted to commend you for your excellent comedy routine on the April 23rd edition of your show.

Your hilarious impersonation of a raving conspiracy-nutcase was spot on! You nailed it, sir!

Exposing "far-left billionaire George Soros" and his "radical left agenda" of "[b]uying political power" and "influence" "under the radar" by "set[ting] up a complicated political operation" to "smear people with whom he disagrees." Priceless! I think the evil billionaire is a bogey-man that should get more play in today's comedy routines. This reminded me of those hilarious Mike Myers/Austin Powers movies with the smirking, bald Dr. Evil. Is there anyway you can get pictures of George Soros stroking a white Angora cat, by any chance? Be honest, when you said "Soros ... can raise millions for politicians, who will do his bidding" you were ripping off Dr. Evil, weren't you? Even Kent said it; "George Soros is really the Dr. Evil of the whole world of left-wing foundations." I knew it! "Do his bidding!!"



Oh! And the chart! Pure confectionary brilliance! Every raving nutcase on the streetcorner always has some crackpot chart showing all of the nefarious linkages. I especially love the little arrows showing Soros "pouring" and "funneling" "millions" and "many millions of dollars" to buy the "influence." I wish you had thought to work in something about Kruegerrands, that would have been good. Or perhaps suitcases full of Swiss Francs. Can you try to fit that in next time?

And the way you worked in so many scary"organizations" like the "Open Society Institute" and the "Tides Foundation." It almost looked like a chart of ENRON limited partnerships, or Jack Abramoff's rolodex, or the board of directors of the Carlyle Group.

The Bond villians always have those cartoonish, ridiculous goals, like stealing all the gold in Fort Knox or controlling the weather. So you riffed on that brilliantly by coming up with -- "George Soros, an extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia, and on and on." "And on and on" indeed! And all of this from his secret lairs hidden deep inside hollowed out mountains "in Curacao and Bermuda and France."

Crowley got in some good lines too. I really liked this one! "This is an incredibly well-oiled, brilliantly orchestrated machine. And as you pointed out, it's also a brilliant way to get around the campaign finance laws in this country." To brilliantly "get around the campaign finance laws" by complying with them exactly, priceless! The irony! And the part where she says "all this power in the hands of one guy because he's got a billion-dollar fortune, where he can put his money wherever he wants." That is amazing. She almosts makes it sound like she is actually suggesting that for someone to openly and transparently put money in support of causes and candidates that they agree with is somehow "dangerous" or "illegal!" The subtlety! He can "put" "his money" "wherever he wants." Astounding!

Not to push it too much, because I do agree that you spoil a joke by trying to explain it, but I could not help mentioning the pure ironic genius of the part where she says "The problem is ... Number one, transparency. " It implies that he was doing something secretly, like one can't just go to the Open Society Institute's website and see right there on the front page "OSI was created in 1993 by investor and philanthropist George Soros to support his foundations." I get it, tranparancy, Open Society, it's open, right, because it actually is tranparent. Very funny!

The next part where you and Crowley work together to make the whole thing into a total mockery is just so funny, I have to quote it in full. It was an exchange worthy of your vaudeville roots!

"O'REILLY: OK. And also because it's a complicated -- you see where the money flow goes. Can you put that chart up again? Because it goes through three or four places -
CROWLEY: Right.
O'REILLY: - before it gets to the intended source.
CROWLEY: Exactly. But, you know, this is a web, but it's not a particularly tangled web. Because as you pointed out -
O'REILLY: It's clean.
CROWLEY: - you can trace it back two or three organizations away from George Soros. He's not even making an attempt to keep his fingerprints off of this."

It's so "complicated" that it is not even a "particularly tangled web." And "you can trace it back." He's "not even making an attempt" "to keep his fingerprints off of this." Like he's too lazy to even try to hide all they stuff that you have "exposed." Like he was actully trying to fly "under the radar." And the fingerprints and transparancy thing again, hilarious! Hiding their "well-oiled" "orchestrated machine" and "complicated political operation" by listing it right on their "Internet site."

So Soros and his evil minions who "do his bidding" "funnels the money to a variety of radical hatchet men, who are all well paid" for their "vile propaganda" and their "distorting comments" and their "euthanasia, and on and on" which "directly feeds its propaganda to some mainstream media people" who "find and fund a candidate who will tacitly do what he or she is told to do."

The crackpot repetition was just right too, for example, this part, where you were practically in chorus!

"O'REILLY: And attacked.
CROWLEY: And attacked.
O'REILLY: And attacked, and attacked. And you know, ripped up --
CROWLEY: And you do not want that danger, not if you're running for president.
O'REILLY: Right. And they don't stop at you. They'll go for your family. They'll go for anyone."

And the punchline! "The really frightening thing about all this is that most Americans have never even heard of George Soros. This is off-the-chart dangerous, but completely legal under the McCain-Feingold Act." I have never laughed so hard! "Completely legal" you say, after all of this buildup. Comedy Gold! I never saw it coming!

I have to admit that the winking-and-nodding part was hard to catch. You might want to do more nudges or smirks or something to demonstrate clearly that you are kidding. But I was able to detect, just barely, where you were really going with all this. I think it was a dead give-away when you first said "In the past, big business has been accused of doing" this stuff. It's all a dig at the big business and corporate cronyism, the whole K Street project thing, right?

Subtle, but it became totally clear what you were really going after when you said later "are there any Republican or conservative groups that rile Soros' -- rival Soros'?" I knew immediately what you were really trying to say. This is all really about the conservatives! Very clever! The Scaife Foundation and The Project for a New American Century! You are accusing Soros, who is in fact not, of doing what the conservatives are in fact actually doing.

There was a lot of innuendo too. All those jokes about "well-oiled" and "funnel" and "all this power in the hands of one guy" who can "put it wherever he wants" and his "vile" "fingerprints". What about the part where you said "they ... basically take exactly what Soros gives them and spit it out" or "We know he [Moyers] is in bed with Soros" and "he's going to take a big (money?) shot ... on PBS." Or the speculation about the "intrusion of the mainstream media?" And where you said I "have reason to believe John Edwards is taking ... [it]... from the Soros group right now. And other Democratic politicians may be as well." "We believe that John Edwards has forged some kind of an arrangement with Soros." Some kind, indeed, that crazy Breck Girl! Or when you talked about "being held in the pocket by a fabulously rich guy like George Soros" who "can put a big hurt on you fast" because "you just exposed him." Pretty risque!

Too bad you can't just come out and call him a Jew, and blame him for all the wars in the world, like Mel Gibson does. That would have been a topper! But as you said "Yeah, but, we live in a thing of freedom of speech."

Thanks again for all the sidesplitters!! Keep up the fabulous work! Can't wait to see the next installment of "raving conspiracy nutjob & friends."

featured at Tom Tomorrow's This Modern World - Visit him!

Media standards should be higher than those for pop music.

I find it mind-boggling that the firing of Don Imus has led to the discussion of hip-hop music and the deleterious effects it has on the always ambiguous "children." The Don Imus controversy should be opening up a national dialogue about the content, quality, and tone of the civil discourse, as well as the broadcasting standards (or lack thereof) in place since the 1987 repealment of the FCC's Fairness Doctrine (and its corollaries, such as the "personal attack rule" and the "equal-time rule").

The fact of the matter is that gangster rap does not have the same impact on the civil discourse as the news and opinion media (of which Don Imus was a part, addressing news and political issues), and arguments that equate the two are indefensible and unsupportable. You can argue that Don Imus was just an entertainer, but that's simply not true. Imus in the Morning was a political and news show, despite his former reputation as nothing more than a "shock jock," and the public influence of his show grew as a result. Less than a decade ago, TIME magazine placed Don Imus on their list of the "25 most influential people in America."

Of course I'll admit that certain lyrics found in certain kinds of hip-hop are reprehensible. But the fact of the matter remains that hip-hop doesn't have the same kind of influence that the news and opinion media does, and it can't be judged by the same standards. Apparently conservatives would have us judge everyone by the same standards, and that should tell us in what regard they hold the press. We should hold the news media to higher standards than mere pop music.

And a comment to those who suddenly care about young African-Americans: if you want to have a positive effect on the African-American community (and it cannot be judged by the content, merits, or standards of the the so-called "hip-hop community"), stop talking about gangster rap (of whom the listening demographic is 71% white) and start strongly advocating and supporting affirmative action, affordable housing, anti-poverty initiatives, equal opportunity employment. Start donating your time as a counselor or tutor. Donate money to the United Negro College Fund. But condemning gangster rap is a transparent ploy when only used after a conservative gets burned for using hate-speech.

To those pour souls who think Don Imus got "lynched": You don't know what a lynching is.

Unpublished letter to the editor.

On April 16, Eric Galdone wrote this letter to the Athens Banner-Herald: Imus firing just the start of stopping hate speech.

On April 19, Johney [sic] Friar wrote this response to Galdone's letter: No shortage of hate anywhere in politics.

When I read Mr. Friar's letter, I decided to write my own response. By this point, I am pretty sure that the Athens Banner-Herald isn't going to publish it, so I have included the text of the letter below.

"I want to invite any conservative to explain to me and the audience of the Athens Banner-Herald exactly how Eric Galdone (author of "Imus firing just the start of stopping hate speech") took the words of conservative pundits Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly out of context in his April 17 letter.

Let's take a look at the specific context of the quote by Fox News host O'Reilly about San Francisco, for example. Here is what O'Reilly said: "And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you [San Francisco] up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead!" (Gives a whole new meaning to his self-granted title, "Culture Warrior", doesn't it?)

Now O'Reilly made this statement while criticizing a ballot measure passed by 60% of San Francisco voters urging the prohibition of on-campus military recruiting in their colleges and high schools. Whether you agree with the San Francisco voters or not is entirely beside the point. My question is this: Does the mere fact that you disagree with other American citizens give you the right to advocate their murder by our enemies abroad? Does O'Reilly have the right to invite terrorists into our country to kill our fellow men and women, just because he disagrees with the content of a ballot measure passed?

I think not. You can try to spin what O'Reilly said, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. This is what passes for conservative rhetoric, and I challenge anyone to defend it."

Let me add a few comments I didn't include in the letter above. A few nights ago, I watched part of an interview O'Reilly was conducting where he stated again and again that media figures should be given the benefit of the doubt. Of course, if you've ever seen The O'Reilly Factor, you'll know he's more than willing to extend this mythical benefit of the doubt only to right-wingers like himself.

But how can we extend the benefit of the doubt to people like O'Reilly when statements like his invitation to terrorists are made so clearly? There's not much room for nuance there, Bill-o.

Conservatives have a choice ahead of them. Either they start saying what they mean and meaning what they say, or they need to quit their jobs as serious social commentators and start doing comedy tours. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. We on left aren't going to accept "Just kidding!" as an excuse every time a conservative "slips up" and says what he really thinks. Personally, I hope conservatives get a lot more honest with their opinions, because when they start saying what they really think, they're only going to humiliate themselves and further divorce their crackpot ideology from mainstream opinion. Remember when O'Reilly made all those obscene phone calls to his female producer, asking questions about her masturbatory habits and the state of her virginity? I have to say, that was pretty damn honest of him. At least we (unfortunately) know what he's thinking about now.

Somehow the message broadcast by these pundits --- often without overt protest from us progressives --- is that conservatives can say whatever they want to, regardless of the veracity of the statement, but the moment progressives like Galdone start being aggressive, suddenly it's progressives who are just hateful and nasty and who degrade the civil discourse.

In response I'd like to ask a question. What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh saying Barack Obama was taught by Muslims for four years and me calling Rush a lying racist and a pill-popping hypocrite? Here's the answer. I can provide extensive documentation backing up each and every word present in that last, colorful phrase, while Rush's claims have been fully debunked here, here, and here. Clarifying the details of Obama's educational history doesn't quite have the punch "Barack went to Muslim school" does, but at least I'm telling the truth.

These people want us to give them the benefit of the doubt, but they have never once given us good reason to do so. When we rightfully call them liars, they say we're trying to "smear" them, and if we call the taste or veracity of what they've said into question, they respond by accusing us of taking their words out of context. But it isn't out of context. We're taking what was said in the greater context of the long, dirty history conservatism has in this country. They mean exactly what they say, unless conservatism is not, in fact, as hateful as first meets the eye, but instead only ambiguously content-free (it's not). Unlike the epithets and blatantly false stories dreamed up by Republican spin doctors, progressive attacks carry weight and have substance. That is why conservatives react so violently to criticism, and apologies are rare and patently fake when provided.

My point is: Never give a conservative the benefit of the doubt. As progressives, we've learned a lot in the past few decades. We're not just going to call conservatives names. We're not just going to chatter on the radio. Instead, we're going to tape and transcribe everything conservatives say. We're going to complain to their sponsors until they become an economic liability. And in the free market, when they become economic liabilities, they will be dropped from major networks.

Mr. Galdone made in his letter to the editor what I consider to be a very important point. We, the people, pay the sponsors responsible for allowing pundits like Limbaugh and O'Reilly to be broadcast. Consumer opinion and the ratings we provide these networks dictate the salaries of these people. And it is up to us to make sure that they never work again.

Support Alan Johnston.

Political "bipartisanship" is impossible.

I'm a little bit frustrated with people who think political "bipartisanship" is something we should strive for and that politics should be kept separate from other concerns. First, I don't think any such thing as neutrality exists, so I think aiming for it is futile; second, I think politics is what gives life meaning and purpose, rather than being a mere accessory to other concerns. And I don't mean politics in the narrow sense of electoral politics in the United States, but rather politics in the wider sense implied in the statement "Everything is politics." Politics then appears to mean a lot of different things, but I think its intention can be pared down to one simple phrase and that phrase is "getting what you want."

Now you're probably thinking I'm one of those horrible persons who profess a morality of ends rather than means. And, to be frank, that is what I'm saying, but let me add the caveat that no coherent political philosophy can function otherwise. Even "means"-philosophies are really about "ends"; means actually are ends and the very moment we started pretending there was a difference, politics became a game of smoke-and-mirrors. But I'm getting sidetracked.

Many people respond to the statement "Everything is politics and politics is about getting what you want" as if it's deeply cynical and probably extremely selfish, too. But I think our automatically negative reactions to phrases like the above is to no small part a conditioned response. We act as if people ever function differently, and we often forget the wide variety of things people can desire.

For example, I have a progressive vision for the future of this country. I want a diverse and responsible culture in which evolution occurs freely; a political environment in which ideas that foment the aforementioned flourish, while reactionary, conservative ideas die out; and a drastic and immediate reduction in carbon emissions (to name a few). These are the driving forces behind my political perspective (in the civic sense, that is).

If you examine your own political opinions, I suspect that you'll find desires as well as all of the messy principle/substance motivations that support what can appear to be glossy and impartial procedural positions. There's nothing wrong with this and it certainly doesn't devalue the opinions themselves. In fact, these foundations humanize politics (for my argument is such that purely procedural politics do not, in fact, exist) and the immediately apparent relativism of my claims should be easily made irrelevant (pun intended) by the (obvious) realization that opposing opinions do not "cancel out" your own by the mere fact of their existence. Politics is never so simple, and it is always personal.