Loom of Gloom

As Hunter Thompson demonstrated, fear and loathing can be a commercial venture as well as the propaganda tool of dictators, demagogues, and other ambitious people who have nothing positive to offer. So here we have the right wing weavers spinning away on the Loom of Gloom in an effort to create enough fear and loathing to cover up the fact that the Republican Party is too morally and intellectually bankrupt to offer any real solutions or any positive programs that will benefit the people of this great nation. Those right wing weavers are aided and abetted in doing this by the drama casters and writers who know that lurid accusations and descriptions designed to create and promote fear and loathing will draw the rubes to pitchmen who pay handsomely for the audience. Most news outlets (the ones owned by Rupert Murdock being the most notable exceptions) demonstrate a shred of journalistic integrity by not printing or presenting obviously spurious accusations or stories by known liars such as Andrew Breitbart and the character assassins who continue perpetuate his scummy blog (or is it bog). The problem is that the news organizations are quickly given the cover they need to present questionable  stories and accusations when the lies are repeated by politicians such as Rand Paul or, even less excusable, when the lies are repeated by the Fox disinformation factory.

I might add here that books carry more weight than blogs or news stories even though the sources of information in the books are often as questionable as the sources of erroneous news stories. The reason I am bringing this up is because of a new book entitled Clinton Cash... by Peter Schweizer, and published by HarperCollins, which is owned by the king of right wing prevaricators, Rupert Murdoch.  As Media Matters warns:

“Media should be cautious with Republican activist and strategist Peter Schweizer's new book Clinton Cash. Schweizer has a disreputable history of reporting marked by errors and retractions, with numerous reporters excoriating him for facts that "do not check out," sources that "do not exist," and a basic failure to practice "Journalism 101."”

In spite of the shady reputation of the author, the known sensational falsehoods presented as facts by so many of the so called news outlets owned by Murdoch, and the warning issued by Media Matters and others a quick Google search will bring up the following, and this is just a partial list:

Fox News-Apr 20, 2015

Laura Ingraham told viewers Monday on “Special Report with Bret Baier” that the latest scandal to plague the presidential candidacy of Hillary ...

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy: Hillary Clinton's Scandals Finally ...
Breitbart News-20 hours ago

New Book, 'Clinton Cash,' Questions Foreign Donations to Foundation
Highly Cited-New York Times-Apr 19, 2015

Revealed! The Scandal Rand Paul Promises Will Derail The Clinton ...
In-Depth-Forbes-Apr 20, 2015

Only one presidential candidate voted for war with Iraq: Hillary Clinton
Opinion-Baltimore Sun-Apr 20, 2015

Getting back to basic facts in the next Hillary 'scandal'

Blog-Washington Post (blog)-Apr 21, 2015

So far even though the Republicans have been throwing shovels full of crap at Hillary Clinton none of it has stuck.  It looks to me like they have just launched another swift boat full of crap.  I say this while having to admit that I have not put on my waders to slop through the muck that is too likely to infest Schweizer's tale.  I must also admit that I am not inclined to pay for privilege of finding out how smelly that muck is.  If I am going to pay for fear and loathing I would rather have Hunter Thompson's heirs profit from it than Rupert Murdoch and some disreputable political hack who apparently has no conscience.

Grandiloquent Inquisition

Gand Inquisitor Gowdy is eagerly riding the soiled coat tails of Grand Inquisitor Issa on the road to absurdity. Forget that Grand Inquisitor Issa ignored the fact that a Republican Congress denied the funds Hillary Clinton requested to provide protection for our embassies and consulates, or that Issa ignored thirteen instances under George W. Bush that were every bit as bad as Benghazi. Forget that Issa demonstrated how phony the issue of Benghazi was by misrepresenting the evidence in such a blatant manner that even his fellow Republicans felt compelled to replace Grand Inquisitor Issa with Grand Inquisitor Gowdy (or is that Gougey?). And please try to suppress the yawns, the groans, and the giggles. I know this alleged issue has become so old and tattered and politically inconsequential that only right wing dullards cheer the sight of it rising again like a moldy flag of desperation. But this time the Republicans promise something new.

It seems as though Secretary of State Clinton had the temerity to do something every Secretary of State has done since government officials started using e-mails – to wit she used her private e-mail account when conducting the government's business. There was no law against her doing that at the time, but that has not stopped the hue and cry of Republicans who have nothing but fear and loathing to sell. There is a law against it now so it obviously should not have been done then, they piously say. What is Hillary hiding? Could it be the same thing all those other Secretaries of State were hiding? Or could it be something connected to the fizzling issue that has been chafing the elephant's crotch since 2012?

Grand Inquisitor Gowdy insists that he needs all of Hillary's e-mails to get to the bottom of Benghazi, and apparently to get to the bottom of whatever else he might want to scratch. Mr. Gowdy is encouraged in doing this by the drama casters in the lame stream media who are agog over allegations that Hillary Clinton might have deleted something relevant. She is a Clinton after all, and we all know scandal follows the Clintons. “Give us all,” they wail. “We want it all!” That apparently means even the documents that are classified. That will not happen, and the sound they will hear as the Republicans try to tie Hillary's use of her private e-mail account to Benghazi will be the sound of snoring! The real news flash is that no one who is inclined to vote for a Democrat is going to be impressed by grandiloquent accusations about Benghazi and e-mails; that boat load of bull shit has already sailed! The lame stream media would be well advised to stick to the real issues and leave the phony ones to the Fox disinformation factory.

Oh, Happy Days!

I am told this is a time for rejoicing. Sing Hallelujah! A new and brighter day for Dish subscribers has dawned. No longer do we have to suffer the mind pap the lame-stream media calls news or the pesky alternative that wants to inflict on us those terrible things called facts. Cooler heads have prevailed, and although it has chilled some bottoms, a deal has been struck. The mind rot of Fox news is once more within the reach of our televisions' remote controls.

I think I will light a cigar and sing “Happy Days Are Here Again.” That was, of course, the theme song of Franklin Roosevelt, which is not the sort of thing that pleases a Fox viewer. But H. L. Mencken's definition of a Puritan not withstanding, the pursuit of happiness is a right enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. So let me sing while Sean Hannity and his ilk join J.P. Morgan in damning all Roosevelts. History is not the strong suit of the right wing, nor are facts. I do not begrudge them the unstated right to be stupid if it makes them happy. The only thing I object to is their insistence on inflicting their stupidity on the rest of us; the consequences of the them doing that legislatively are really grim!

Dish This!

It is not Bill Oh'Really or Insanity Hannity that Fox News is putting forward to try to browbeat Dish into giving Fox what it wants. No sir, Fox is going for the indignation of women. That's right, they want momma to be pissed off because Dish is depriving her of her daily dose of paranoid drivel. So do we have a war on the sanity of women? Hell, no! Fox is merely protecting the right of women to be as paranoid and stupid as grumpy, racist, old white men. And liberal objections to calling Fox's mind rot “news” are like Michelle Obama criticizing labels touting the health benefits of artery clogging foods. In fact, the women on Fox are saying this is about the freedom to eat whatever you can afford to buy, and to believe whatever you want to believe regardless of how absurd or harmful that belief may be! Well all right, I may have misstated what the women on Fox are actually saying: according to Fox you are free to believe anything that fits into the right wing paradigm; any other belief is considered toxic to the oligopoly and therefore unpatriotic.

I would like to think that taking Fox off the air is an effort on the part of Dish to defend journalistic integrity by getting rid of the network that has no integrity (journalistic or otherwise). Unfortunately, that is not the case. Dish is not doing it to increase the IQ of its average viewer by getting rid of the dullards either. In spite of what Fox or Dish might want you to think, this is not about the rights of either of the parties or their viewers. This dispute is about MONEY!  Frankly, I am enjoying the show, but then I'm not jonesing for a fix of paranoid absurdity.  If you are jonesing for such a fix, try watching the lame stream media.  I know it is not the same, but they do quote politicians of both parties without pointing out the errors or lies of those politicians, and you are still free to believe whatever you want to believe.

Hold The Drama Please

Once more the media has cranked the drama up to absurd levels. No less than Andrea Mitchell was expressing her bewilderment and horror over President Obama’s refusal to visit the border where all those children were crossing into Texas from Mexico. She made it sound as though the President was fiddling while Washington was burning. Other supposedly objective reporters and pundits were also shaking their heads as they talked about the “optics.” What they meant by optics is nothing more than political eyewash. It did not look good for President Obama to stay away, they said. It made him look like he did not care. Some Republicans actually said this was Obama’s Katrina. But, of course, those Republicans simply do not get it and never will. What made President Bush’s fly over seem so callus was “You’re doing a heck of a job, Browny,” Barbara Bush’s comment about those poor people camped out in the Superdome being better off than they were in their homes before the storm, and the obvious neglect leading up to the storm!

I do not think we can call anyone on television a news reporter today. At best they are news casters and at worst they are salespersons. I am sure President Obama wishes his crystal ball had told him all those kids were coming. If he had known, he could have prepared for the crises by asking congress for the same funds they say he does not need in order to deal with the problem today. The fact that Republican Congressmen refuse to do what needs to be done about this and other immigration problems is a lot more important than political eyewash. So why is the news media calling President Obama’s refusal to provide them with the sight bites they demand a failure of leadership? Could it be that real neglect and intransigence are not as dramatic as the crap the demagogues can make up and the news casters can stir up? Got to draw the marks to the pitchmen, you know! It is all about selling the products.

A Time For Reason:

When Rachel Maddow interviewed John Stewart he criticized her for being too partisan. I enjoy Mr. Stewart’s show, but I disagree with his criticism of Ms. Maddow and the other commentators on MSNBC. Although I was a child at the time I remember Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunts. I remember the Army-McCarthy hearings, which I watched with my parents, and I remember Edward R. Murrow putting his career on the line by taking a stand against Senator McCarthy. Edward R. Murrow was correct when he said we cannot promote freedom abroad by destroying it at home. The John Birch Society thought Joseph McCarthy was right even after he had been discredited. Their paranoid rants about traitors and conspiracies made them as dangerous as he was! No one should have remained non-partisan about Senator Joseph McCarthy or the Birchers.

Joseph McCarthy and the John Birch society were eventually defeated but the paranoia and irrational fears they exploited live on. The Republican Party has swung so far to the right that it is now pandering to the same sort of paranoia embraced by the Birchers and Joseph McCarthy. The Republicans are once more taking into their party people who are advancing wacky theories about traitors and government conspiracies. At least one Republican candidate for the Senate even advocated second amendment remedies, which means armed insurrection and/or assassinations. No one should be non-partisan about candidates who are making such threats!

The paragraphs above were inspired by Keith Olbermann’s commentary on Ted Koppel. In that brilliant commentary Mr. Olbermann also talked about Edward R. Murrow’s courageous stand against Senator McCarthy. What Mr. Olbermann addressed so well in that commentary are the issues of journalistic integrity and, perhaps more importantly, journalistic responsibility. He was saying that the fear mongering and demagoguery we are witnessing today are so wrong and so dangerous that they fall out of the realm of partisan politics and must not be tolerated. I agree with him, and I thank him for the stance he has taken. At the very least journalists have a duty to report the facts. They should point out the absurdity of Republicans alleging that the health care reform bill has a provision creating death panels. They should tell us what is actually in the health care bill that was passed. They should report that extending the Bush tax cuts for the Rich will add seven hundred billion dollars to our national debt and that it will not create as many jobs as other things on which that money could be spent. Omitting facts is not responsible reporting and including facts that reflect poorly on one of the parties is not a partisan act. The facts are never partisan; they are reality.

I can remember a time when there was a growing concern about the influence of television. There was a commitment to public service at that time. News broadcasters were expected to report the facts and educate the public about the issues. My sincerest hope is that Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and the other good people at MSNBC will have enough influence to make the main stream media accept the responsibility they have to inform the public regardless of which political party might benefit from that. Now is the time for reason. Only an informed electorate can make wise decisions! Since most people rely on television for the news it is up to news broadcasters to keep the public informed. That is the duty of any news organization, and most news broadcasters have been shirking that duty.

Note to my visitors: Please see my previous post entitled “Who Shall Pay?” It is about the extension of the Bush tax cuts, and we need to make it clear to President Obama that only the cuts for middle class should be extended!

Where Has Public Service Gone?

Believe it or not, I do not like railing against the Republican Party every week. Do not misunderstand what I am saying here. I am a registered Democrat, and I would still present arguments. I would still tell you why I think the Republicans are wrong about particular issues. Doing so is a vital part of our system. An honest debate is healthy. Even in an honest debate, however, both sides will exaggerate, embellish, and try to get you to ignore facts that do not support their arguments. That is to be expected. Part of the reason why debates are important is because both sides will point out when their opponent is exaggerating, embellishing or ignoring facts. There was a time when elected officials called themselves public servants. They had an appreciation of our history, and they were concerned about how future historians would view them. They were not overly combative for the mere sake of partisanship, and they tried to avoid telling outright lies because they knew those lies would be exposed. It was, after all, a time when a high value was placed on education, science and knowledge. It was a time when the news media was expected to provide a public service by imparting accurate information and by presenting the facts in a fair and impartial manner. Whatever happened to this concept of public service?

I am not just waxing nostalgic here. I realize our politicians were never perfect. The Republican Party has always had a problem with the lunatic right. We can see it in the witch hunts of Senator Joe McCArthy, and we can see it in some of the extremists who supported Barry Goldwater. The Democratic Party also had its extremists on the left. The difference between then and now is that honest reporters, like Edward R. Murrow, eventually stepped up to the plate to expose Senator McCarthy, and other reporters, like Walter Cronkite, exposed the lunacy of the extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. That seems to have gone by the wayside. Today the main stream media seems to be going beyond all reason to avoid offending people buying the products they advertise, and you have other media types serving up partisan slop without any regard for the facts. The bottom line is that politicians have become so contentious that public service and reason have been forgotten. Why should liberals like me and the good people of MSNBC be the only ones who are pointing out the obvious lies, blatant hypocrisy, outrageous vitriol, and the absurd conspiracy theories that are used to whip up the fears of people who will not check the facts. Where are the moderates who should be demanding public service from their representatives and Senators? And why are they not demanding more information and honest debates of the issues so vital to our country?

I should not have to give you examples, but I will. The Washington Post ran an article by Orin Hatch ranting about the Democratic Party’s use of the reconciliation process to pass health care reform. Mr. Hatch’s rant was obviously disingenuous and hypocritical. We know this because he supported the use of reconciliation to pass bills favored by the administration of George W. Bush. Yet this respected newspaper let the rant stand without even mentioning Mr. Hatch’s support of reconciliation in the past. Ideally, the Post should have run an editorial discussing the reconciliation process and the filibuster rule that is making both parties resort to reconciliation. At the very least, the Post should have pointed out Mr. Hatch’s inconsistency in regard to reconciliation. This example is a minor when compared with what the Washington Times did. The Washington Times ran an editorial by Kerry Picket. In this editorial Mr. Picket stated that the Missile Defense logo bears a striking resemblance to the Iranian Space Agency logo, the Obama Presidential Campaign logo and the Pepsi Cola logo. Mr. Picket opined that even if the resemblance between the Obama campaign logo and the Missile Defense logo was inadvertent, the Missile Defense logo should not be allowed to resemble the campaign logo. What Mr. Picket did not reveal is that the Missile Defense logo was designed and approved during the administration of George W. Bush. The omission of this vital piece of information creates the impression of one more absurd conspiracy theory. I am expecting Glen Beck to embrace that theory at any moment.

The examples I have given are only examples of what the print media is doing. Television is even worse. This contention that there is a liberal media bias is nothing more than poisoning the well. It is an attempt to disparage the source enough to make people ignore the information. If you are stupid enough to indulge in the mind rot of Fox, there is no hope for you. The vast majority of the people in this great nation want the facts so that they can make informed decisions. They should not have to go to liberal organizations like MSNBC in order to get those facts. The facts are what they are. They can be verified and confirmed. Responsible people will acknowledge them and argue over what they mean in regard to our policies and actions. The liberals are presently much better about doing that than the conservatives are. There are still some conservatives who are responsible enough to do it, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to find them. Most conservatives are too busy pandering to the Fox noise crowd. You deserve better than that. Regardless of whether you are a liberal, a conservative, or a moderate, you deserve more information and that information must be accurate.

We need to bring back the concepts of journalistic integrity and public service. The facts must be exposed for all to see, and we must base our decisions on what is real rather than on what we merely imagine or are inclined to believe because of some ideology.