The Liberal Media Myth (I)

Every time someone claims the media is just too damn liberal, God probably kills a puppy and clips an angel's wings. And I die a little inside.

As I previously mentioned, I think this is in part due to the fact that the political center has somehow moved to the right. So regardless of whatever fairly benign, moderate positions newspapers and television shows take on education or transit or foreign alliances, conservatives can scream that it is liberal according to their interpretation of the political spectrum.

But that is definitely not the whole story. The media has lost a great deal of independence, as corporate owners are definitely in favor of keeping the present incarnation of the GOP in power. It's no great secret as to why big business wants Republicans in power; after all, how else would you manage to rig the system so that gains are capitalized (profit motive, capitalism, etc.) and losses are socialized (and yes, that's a crappy link, but the bailout window opened a few weeks ago and I hate digging through old news).

And what happens in the political race? The same guy who did a baseless, factually deficient hit job on Kerry in 2004 is pushing a baseless, factually deficient hit job on Obama in 2008. Yet television stations give the guy a pulpit to spread his lies. It wouldn't be as bad if there were more people on television like Bob Costas, who put more pressure on Bush in an interview for the Olympics than news anchors and hosts whose job it is to ask tough, investigative questions and avoid the entire "gotcha" journalism crap.

It's kind of sad that our "liberal" media's best critics of conservative stupidity are sportscasters.


Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( August 13, 2008 09:05 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

Moving to the Center

There are a number of phrases, which, after this election, no media outlet should ever repeat: Sista Soulja moment, maverick, thrown under the bus, flip-flop, ad infinitum.

But the one I detest the most is the nonsense about Obama "moving to the center." This translates into an incredibly stupid reversal on FISA, appeasing the ultra-right wing Zionists, backing down on offshore drilling and a number of other things I am not in the mood to look up.

What has happened to the political center? Some of the most popular social programs like Social Security and Medicare are suddenly considered to be far-left, socialist ideas, which is ridiculous: people love these programs. And we are the only remaining industrialized nation without some sort of universal health coverage, despite the fact that it makes ridiculously good economic sense (healthy workers are productive workers, socializing the cost takes it off the balance sheets, fewer hours lost to disability) and the majority of Americans want some form of guaranteed coverage.

Other ideas like diplomacy are also leftist and dangerous. This is patently ridiculous -- diplomacy is very safe and can prevent war, which is actually a GOOD thing.

Why is all this stuff leftist? Probably due to the fact that the conservative fringe has moved so far to the right that normally "moderate" ideas are now socialist measures. And we've definitely seen that shift: Fox News and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp empire, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, George Will, Charles Krauthammer and every other right-wing pundit represent that ideological shift among the media and its corporate interests to the extreme right.

And yet we are off fighting "extremists" in the Middle East, most of whom are so angry and willing to blow stuff up because of stupid policies crafted by the bona fide extremists in America.

We need to kick these people out of power. I've watched V for Vendetta multiple times in the past month, and all of America needs to realize something Hugo Weaving's V character says: "People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people."


Viva la revolucion...


Posted by pdmccaul [Op-Ed] ( August 12, 2008 04:42 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

Irritated rant #1

As the title of this post goes, this is the first irritated rant I'm putting on this blog.

First off, I'm addressing white people's annoyance at the so-called double standard regarding the n-word. Here's the truth: THERE IS NO DOUBLE STANDARD. When a white person uses the n-word in America, it carries nearly 400 years of systemic oppression of blacks by whites; when a black person uses it, (in my opinion) they are trying to use a previously derogatory term in order to neutralize it. Honestly, it's like something you'd see out of any group of people that bands together because a bunch of people don't like them -- the group members try to turn the hateful labels the larger group applies to the smaller group in order to pretty much tell the bullies to go to hell. Maybe it's not quite that simple, but that's how it is.

So remember: 400 years of getting your lives ruthlessly controlled kind of entitles a racial group to be sensitive about the oppressors using derogatory terms about them, and they do what they can to start seizing control of the language for themselves.

And on that part, please don't start with the shit about black people being gangsta thug criminals. Criminology is one of my majors, and one of the biggest myths out there is that of minorities being evil criminals who threaten white people. Overwhelmingly, the dominant factor in criminal tendencies is socioeconomic status. Poor people commit crimes because they are desperate. Or something like that. Moreover, with regard to violent crime (the gangsta thug criminal stereotype), most of the time, white people kill white people and black people kill black people. Period. It's only due to sensationalistic crap like the O.J. Simpson trial and every other example of a black man killing a white woman do we get this ridiculous stereotype of the dangerous black gangsta trying to do a drive-by shooting of all our promising young white men and a drive-by rape of all our precious young white women.

Which nicely segues me into rape: it's criminally negligent as to how blithely our society blames the victim for rape and it stems from the almost universal sexism in society. If you want to talk about a real double standard, try this one on for size: when a woman is raped, she "had it coming" because she was "sexually promiscuous" and a "total slut" some ridiculous nonsense like that; when a man is sexually promiscuous, he's considered the awesomest manly man, out-manlied by only Chuck Norris.

The last thing I have the sanity to type before I start wanting to hit my head against the giant wall of society's stupidity is a broad statement about equality, covering issues like immigration, gay marriage (and other "social issues") and practically every -ism out there.

Please, please, PLEASE stop with the ridiculous hating. Particularly in America, we have this irrational hatred of the minority. We have hated practically every single wave of immigrant in this country, legal or otherwise and we still ended up eventually integrating them into society. We go on and on about gay marriages and abortions without stopping to think that we don't really give a damn about 99.99999% of the people who get married, nor do we spend hours wondering if any of the tens of millions of women in America are pregnant and if the fetus they may carry is actually a person. We go on about where women belong, what races are dangerous and what religions are hellbent on destroying America without realizing that our men are doing stupid things in the places they allegedly belong, our "law-abiding" races are out committing the same crimes the "dangerous" races are doing and the "good" religions are engaging in extremism that rivals that of the "evil" religions.

I've gotten past a good part of hating the intolerant idiots who support all these irrational positions and have almost gotten to the point of pity -- life is tough enough as it is, so all these people are doing is adding unnecessary crap to deal with everyday. And for what hate there is left in me, I mostly store it up and use it as an excuse to plop down with a bunch of beer and stare at a TV for a while.

There. I feel better already.


Posted by pdmccaul [Op-Ed] ( July 31, 2008 08:11 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

Satire

By now, I'm sure everyone has heard about the "controversial" New Yorker cover with Barack Obama.

I believe that, as usual, John Stewart says it best -- "it's just a f***ing cartoon."

Seriously. It's a cartoon. Yes, I personally can't stand Mallard Fillmore, mostly because I detect factual inaccuracies or blatant depictions of nonsensical right-wing talking points. But this is the New Yorker magazine people say!

Does anyone realize who reads the New Yorker? People like me (elitist sophisticates and ex-New Yorkers) and New Yorkers. If this wasn't broadcast on television, I kind of doubt there'd be a massive controversy.

But again Stewart puts it best -- "How dare the New Yorker magazine present horrible perceptions of Barack Obama without merely stating whether or not the allegations are true...That is SOOOO your job. (cue clips of media portraying Obama as a America-hating secret Muslim)."

I've said it before, although maybe not in this blog, and I'll say it again -- isn't it bad when a comedy show presents the best coverage of current events?


Posted by pdmccaul [Op-Ed] ( July 23, 2008 08:32 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

Are you aware?

This is a bit old, but it's still funny.

If you don't know where the meme "I am aware of all Internet traditions" came from, this here is a good explanation. And if you want to see it merged with LOLCatz, O RLY owl, I Drink Your Milkshake man and a bunch of other memes, look here.

Ignorance is (NOT) Strength is aware of all Internet traditions. Are you?


Posted by pdmccaul [Just Funny] ( July 20, 2008 11:27 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

Vaccinate the kids

Apparently the anti-vaccination celebrity crowd has a celebrity opponent: Amanda Peet.

And it's high damn time. This nonsense about vaccines causing autism is getting out of hand. Studies find that the link all these anti-vaccination celebrities and fear-mongering parents on television claim exists between vaccines and autism is bogus.

More importantly, who the hell are you kidding? Are you going to believe a bunch of Hollywood celebrities -- the same Hollywood that produced Tom Cruise jumping up and down on Oprah's couch and all the other Scientologists who claim several psychiatric treatments for severe psychological problems don't work -- and a few parents on the TV claiming that a vaccine causes autism or doctors and researchers who study autism?

Autism, if I remember, is also something of a spectrum disorder, so you probably know some very mildly autistic people (I do not stand by this as absolute fact -- this is from conversations with a friend with an autistic brother, who [my friend] is very involved in the North Carolina autism foundation).

And here's the bottom line: would you rather have an autistic child or a dead child?


Posted by pdmccaul [Random News] ( July 17, 2008 05:16 PM ) Permalink | Comments[2]

John McCain is aware of the Internets

It's been well-established that John McCain isn't exactly computer literate.

But how can someone in the media defend this as a non-issue?

Seriously, if Barack Obama had said this, I swear, the national dialogue would be filled with talking points like:

• "He doesn't know what the Internet is? His buddy Al Gore invented it, did he forget to tell Obama about what it is?"
• "How can Barack Obama connect with your average citizen if he doesn't use Google?"
• "Is Barack Obama too elitist for the Internet?"

Ain't objectivity grand?


Posted by pdmccaul [Op-Ed] ( July 17, 2008 07:51 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

A Must-Read for All

Jamison Foser's latest Media Matters (3 July) is something everyone should read.

Here's one part I find particularly damning (with regard to that whole Wesley Clark hissy fit a few weeks ago):

This is bias. This is subjectivity. This is disgusting.

As a newspaper person myself (section editor for Viewpoint in the N.C. State student newspaper Technician), I admit that I have my opinions. But I also like to see if the facts fit my opinion, and if they do not, I modify my opinion.

Case in point: I once thought torture was acceptable in ticking-bomb situations. But then I looked up countless accounts that said torture doesn't work, regardless -- in fact, the best interrogators established rapport with captives as the "good cop" and got valuable information. The latest news that a number of our techniques were based off Communist Chinese tactics to elicit false confessions is that final nail in the coffin. FALSE CONFESSIONS! False confessions elicited under duress are a double whammy: we become horrible violators of the human rights we claim to champion and we get bad intelligence that could get people killed.

This is why I've stopped watching television news and am considering a move out of this country.

Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( July 07, 2008 08:55 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

I call BS!

The following passage from this NYTimes article reeks of BS:

Why do I call BS? Perhaps this little gem I read at Obsidian Wings will explain. If you don't feel like reading, the main link in that Obsidian Wings post is to a NYTimes story entitled:

Reporters Say Networks Put Wars on Back Burner

Yes, I know, the article mostly talks about the Big Three TV networks. But that's a fairly big news outlet, particularly considering that print media seems to be on the decline.

So if anything, the media has put the war on the back burner and will bring it out only when their candidate (who loves donuts with the sprinkles on top) needs a boost.

Posted by pdmccaul [Random News] ( July 07, 2008 08:42 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

Jesse Helms: GOOD RIDDANCE (UPDATED)

I know it's not exactly kosher to speak ill of the dead, but if there are two people in the world I could reserve it for, one is Hitler and the other is Jesse Helms.

This post over at Firedoglake probably best explains why I detest that racist, homophobic bigot who stubbornly stood for principles that belong in the 15th century.

He served for far too long in the Senate, and it almost shames me to say that I lived in North Carolina while he was serving as its Senator.

If there's any justice in the afterlife, then Helms is certainly not in a very happy place right now.

UPDATE:

The G Spot is a fairly new blog, but it has a hell of a lot more on how the British papers gave Jesse Helms's a fitting obituary that spoke naught but the truth and left out the maudlin sentiment American papers seem obsessed with giving every public official and celebrity post mortem.

It reminds me of Orson Scott Card's Speaker for the Dead -- the protagonist of the preceding book (Ender's Game), Andrew Wiggin, has left his xenocidal ways behind and now travels the galaxy and "speaks" people's deaths. In doing so, he does not go out of his way to speak excessively well of the deceased; instead, in keeping with the tradition of speaking deaths, which he founded at the end of Ender's Game, Andrew Wiggin speaks nothing but the truth of a person's life. In Speaker for the Dead, the one death he speaks (at least as far as I remember -- I haven't read the book in a year) is of a man that many feared and thus hated for his strength, which shapes the man into who he is.

I really wish I could summarize it, but it's rather difficult to summarize without writing a few pages myself (this translates into BUY THE BOOK and READ IT FOR YOURSELF).

Still, we must remember that the truth of our actions will live on beyond us, and there's very little point in trying to hide it behind polite encomiums and eulogies.


Posted by pdmccaul [Op-Ed] ( July 06, 2008 04:28 PM ) Permalink | Comments[1]

Why is Karl Rove considered...

...a political genius?

The man first managed to run the 2006 GOP elections based on the idea that electing Democrats would result in all of us catching the terrorists' super smallpox viruses, spontaneously converting to radical Islam and then dying in a nuclear fireball. If you recall, that managed to award the Democrats control of Congress (which they have squandered).

But now this: Crooks and Liars has a clip of Rove on Hannity and Colmes talking about Boumediene v. Bush, in which SCOTUS argued that Gitmo detainees have the right to habeas corpus rights. As many have noted before, this does not automatically mean the people we are illegally holding for indefinite periods of time can go out and strap on a C-4 vest and kill Americans -- it means that they have the right to challenge their detention. And the bottom line is that if they were actually terrorists, we should have a pretty damn good case against them: THEY BLEW UP AMERICAN BUILDINGS OR KILLED AMERICAN TROOPS!

But Karl Rove goes on H&C and spouts the right-wing nonsense that the terrorists can now be set free immediately and proceed to bomb our cities and get gay married.

If you watch the entire clip, you realize just how much of an idiot Rove is. He tries to claim that the 2002 vote for the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq is the same as a declaration of war.

This is deceiving. Ultimately, the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution, says that Congress is vested with the power to declare war, while the War Powers Resolution declares that the President may take immediate action against enemies of the state.

If you read the 2002 Iraq AUMF, it shows that the President is bound to use force only as last resort if diplomacy had failed.

Diplomacy never failed. Thus, amongst other arguments, the Congress has every right to withdraw support and pull the troops out right now. The other major argument is probably that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, as it undercuts Article I's statement that the legislature is responsible for the declaration of war. Unfortunately, with the Supreme Court stacked as it is, I don't see that sort of ruling emerging at any time in the next few months.


Posted by pdmccaul [Op-Ed] ( July 04, 2008 04:23 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

Columbian hostage rescue

Recently, the Columbian government rescued 15 hostages, including former Columbian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt.

To me, the rescue seems like the intelligence community's version of the hidden ball trick -- the Columbian agents got in close and sold the FARC guerillas on the notion that the rescue was unlikely as it would lead to the hostages' deaths. FARC took the bait, hook, line and sinker and the Columbians rescued the hostages without firing a shot.

Could the American government have pulled it off?

No way.

As this Washington Independent column points out, American intelligence personnel are increasingly finding themselves unable to establish the basis for an active group of field agents, in great part due to the fact that they are locked up in their compounds to protect themselves:

This is killer. We cannot rely on satellites and clever gadgets to get us all the answers we need, particularly with the sophistication and secrecy some non-state actors and guerilla-based movements have. The textbook example is Hezbollah -- as this post over at Firedoglake shows, Hezbollah is extremely sophisticated, can undermine any government we attempt to install and shows why the American military machine is no longer as effective as it was in the days of the Cold War.

The American military should heed the advice of Lou Gerstner, the ex-CEO of IBM, in his book Who Says Elephants Can't Dance? It's pretty compelling, considering Gerstner walked into a company on the verge of disaggregation in 1993 and turned it around into a hugely successful player in the IT service field with a revived corporate culture that eschewed the balkanization of the company prior to Gerstner's arrival.

We need a similar approach to gear our military for modern warfare; unfortunately, I don't think George W. Bush is inclined to or capable of such a drastic turnaround.


Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( July 03, 2008 06:55 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

George W. Bush: Good for porn!

This is probably one of the funniest things I've seen: Bush Stimulates The Porn Industry With His Economic Package.

Basically, people are using their stimulus checks to buy a ton of porn off the Internet. Which, as we all know, is exactly what the Internet is for.

Even better: LEWIS BLACK CALLED IT BACK ON MAY 8TH!!! At about 2:32 into it:

There you have it -- Lewis Black, the new Nostradamus.

By the way, if anyone can tell me how to get the embed code to actually work in this blog, I'd be happier than a sugar-addicted child in a candy factory.


Posted by pdmccaul [Just Funny] ( July 02, 2008 07:16 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

Wesley Clark's statement (updated)

I hesitate to weigh in on this, but after seeing the Talking Points Memo Veracifier video on the MSM's absolute hissy fit on Clark's remarks, I feel I should point this out on this forum.

Wes Clark never questioned John McCain's war record. I think Digby best summarized what we had to look forward after Clark's remarks: the mother of all hissy fits.

Here's what Clark said (in context):

CLARK: He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded ? that wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, "I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not, do you want to take the risk, what about your reputation, how do we handle this publicly? He hasn't made those calls, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn't had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.

CLARK: I don?t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.

(emphasis mine)

He basically said that McCain never had to make the executive decisions, e.g., bomb target A, target B or target C, move the troops in or make a strategic withdrawal, etc. And then he said that McCain's experience is not indicative of the executive experience required for the Presidency, which is correct (otherwise, by right-wing logic, any Marine who ever held an M-16 has adequate experience to control the American military).

The MSM's hissy fit is exactly why I only watch my primetime dramas/comedies, sports and the occasional soap. If I have to watch the news, I turn on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report.

UPDATE: Rhetorical question -- why is it acceptable for the (ex-) military people the right hires to impugn on (ex-) military people on the left when it is unacceptable for those liberally-aligned military people to even suggest that a conservatively-aligned general might have forgotten to brush his/her teeth?

John McCain's got a Swift Boater on his side now. I now plan to never watch televised news until further notice.


Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( July 02, 2008 09:46 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

Go back Jack and do it again

Wow.

The title of this blog post kills me: Six Years Later, McCain Says He Still Would've Invaded Iraq -- Presumably For The Hell Of It.

It may just be my macabre sense of humor, but that title makes me chuckle. But on the serious side of things, what psychoactive drugs is John McCain on? A country that had no ties to al Qaeda, had no WMDs nor a program to develop them and a populace that now wants America to get the hell out of their country, and McCain STILL would have invaded?

While we're at it, can we invade...Canada and Britain? (insert Canadian/British jokes of choice here)

No invading Burma though -- even though the military junta is a bad dictatorship, we cannot, CANNOT fall into the classic blunder of land war in Asia.


Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( July 01, 2008 03:36 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

The SURGE!

I don't have a lot to say in this post, nor do I have links for you to click on or ignore.

I do have a question: if the Surge has worked and We are Winning in Iraq, with Victory Around the Corner, when can we Bring Home the Troops?

Seriously, it makes no sense. Bush says the troops will come home once we've won. Now that we've almost won, do we plan on leaving? NO! Stay forever! Hell, let's invade Iran while we're at it!

Then again, it IS Bush and his insane neocon friends we are talking about...


Posted by pdmccaul [Op-Ed] ( July 01, 2008 03:02 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

Three blog posts

These three blog posts have me worried:

Testosterone Nation (Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan)

Shanghai Cliff Diving (Calculated Risk)

Unleash Fiscal Policy Now, or More Severe Recession Ahead (Robert Reich's Blog)

The first covers some recent analysis of the consequences of China's one-child policy and the country's prediliction for male children. This is going to be huge in the future, particularly when the workforce of today's PRC has to retire. Without women, a population simply cannot grow.

The second is obvious: the Shanghai Stock Exchange has essentially jumped off a cliff since start of 2008. Considering how much economic power the Chinese have gained over the past 20 years, this will have profound, global effects on the world economy.

Taking both of these aspects into consideration, we're talking about severe economic crises facing China in both the short and mid-term intervals.

The last is about America's recession, and how the US government must recognize the wisdom of Keynesian deficit spending as the supplier of demand of last resort. For people who aren't economists, policy wonks like myself or people who had to write papers about Keynes (also myself), let me explain: Keynes basically said that Say's Law (supply will create its own demand) is not necessarily universal, particularly in times of economic downturn -- in Keynes' lifetime, that was a little something called the Great Depression, and it's apparent in our current recession.

Thus, the government is the last resort of stimulating the economy via government spending on infrastructure (which is usually deficit spending, but that goes too deep into the economics). And infrastructure is just the sort of thing our country needs. Given the high price of oil, it seems very important for our nation to invest in mass transit systems, levees and alternative energy sources.

Still, I'm not optimistic about any of it. There are going to be rough times ahead for almost everyone except the ridiculously wealthy. And it's almost to the point where I don't see any proposed solution working.


Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( June 30, 2008 08:01 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

Climate Change Wonkishness (minor tweak)

Climate change on other planets and moons?

Could it be?

I love how all the conservatives are holding this up as proof that global climate change really isn't an issue. Has it occurred to these people that we may have exacerbated an existing temperature cycle with our behaviors?

More importantly, we've seen more and more in the way of powerful weather disasters, many of which could be predicted from an unusual increase in global temperature. And the ice caps are melting rather quickly on Earth.

So to save lives in the future and hopefully create jobs, thus stimulating the economy, can we please stop arguing about whether global warming exists? It feels like we're arguing whether we should do something about a small fire in our yard -- sitting around and arguing isn't going to help if something changes and the fire grows and burns the house down.

One last note: I can't seem to find anything except the usual skeptic sites and editorials about this warming on Jupiter and melting ice on Mars stuff. Not even with a decent search on Google News (not exactly scientific nor thorough). I'll try LexisNexis later and try to find something, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this is overblown nonsense by flat-earth people.


Posted by pdmccaul [Random News] ( June 28, 2008 06:38 PM ) Permalink | Comments[1]

A good idea

Posting will be infrequent (for anyone who reads) for a while, as I have stuff to take care of with the newspaper. Hopefully, I'll switch over to a blog there and all will be well.

But I had to post this link to a New York Times piece from 25 June:

An Honor That Bush Is Unlikely to Embrace.

The CliffNotes? A group of citizens in San Francisco want to name a sewage plant after George W. Bush.

That's right: no highway for you, King George.


Posted by pdmccaul [Random News] ( June 26, 2008 01:19 PM ) Permalink | Comments[0]

We surrendered

Well, it's official: we've surrendered to terror.

I've spoken enough on FISA amendments, and I'm increasingly agreeing with some very libertarian blogs about how this capitulation is of no surprise.

How we managed to surrender our liberties and laws over to an idiot named George Walker Bush and his war criminal cronies is truly saddening. It's the real day the music died.


Posted by pdmccaul [Politics] ( June 20, 2008 11:15 AM ) Permalink | Comments[0]