Racist Media Coverage of Haiti Continues. Some History & Taibblog Analyzes Brooks

I've already discussed some of the racism that has occurred in the news coverage of the crisis in Haiti here. There has been a slight amount of push-back against the more virulent words of Limbaugh and others, but what is creeping into the media--tolerated no doubt by the racism that has been rising since the nomination of Barack Obama--is a subtle form of racism couched in terms of economics and caused, as usual, by ignorance.

A google search this morning returned 2 million hits using the keywords Haiti coverage racism, telling me that 1) it is a subject written about at length, and 2) a subject of concern to many. What is unfortunate, is that in 2010, the hits returned listed media from the major broadcast and cable networks, print, and other sources ranked highly enough to appear on the first few pages returned.

Very few Americans know the history of Haiti. They do not know that Haiti is the only country in which the slaves freed themselves, declaring themselves a free nation. At the time, Thomas Jefferson was President and had a secret deal with Napolean, who unknown to Jefferson, planned to establish a French Empire in the "New World" with a base in New Orleans to spread west off the Mississippi. With the loss of Haiti and decimation of his troops, Napolean eventually sold his territories and the "Louisiana Purchase" allowed the United States to double in size and eventually to spread west to the Pacific Ocean and deny France a foothold in the western hemisphere.

Angered at the actions of the Haitian slaves and afraid that the rebellion would move to American slaves, Jefferson embarked on a political and economic embargo that lasted until President Lincoln established diplomatic relations with Haiti forty years later. The murder of their first leader and political infighting within Haiti led to political instability within the new country. This upheaval and the economic chaos caused by the embargo began a pattern of political violence that lasted until recently. The reason for the poverty? The French demanded, and received, reparations for the loss of their sugar plantations after the slaves revolted and freed themselves (never mind such things as wages never paid). Twenty-one billion dollars was paid to France between 1925 and 1946. Troops from Great Britain, Canada, and the U.S. ensured that this money was paid and have remained ever since. The power-brokers in Washington maintained connections with the light-skinned elite in Haiti enabling George Bush the Senior and George Bush the Junior both to oust President Jean-Bertrand Aristide both times he was elected by large margins in national elections. His presidency did not suit the Republican agenda in Washington, as it was Aristide that demanded the money be returned by France in reparation for Haiti's poverty.

So, America owes a big debt to Haiti. Even if we did not, this is a country that has just experienced a disaster of a magnitude that has been mentioned as one of the ten greatest since records have been kept. It is still unknown how many people have died and it said that it is not clear that we will ever know.

At Media Matters, their ongoing monitoring of the media shows that on January 13, Fox News top three rated shows, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck spent a combined total of 7 minutes on earthquake coverage compared to over two hours for Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Chris Matthews. 

It was Rush Limbaugh who claimed that President Obama's suggestion that we turn 9/11 into a national day of service was a "left-wing political belief," and has mocked Fox News Shepphard Smith coverage of Hurricane Katrina (Smith being the one reporter on Fox who appears to have some decency left and the ability to occassionally defy his corporate masters).

Then, comes a column by David Brooks in the New York Times. Analyzed by Matt Taibbi here, I cannot even begin to come close to the quality of work Matt has done, so I won't try. As summarized in Taibbi's introduction, the Brooks article illustrates how:

"Not many writers would have the courage to use a tragic event like a 50,000-fatality earthquake to volubly address the problem of nonwhite laziness and why it sometimes makes natural disasters seem timely, but then again, David Brooks isn’t just any writer."

Poverty isn't caused by race, or class, or national origin. Poverty cannot be erased by throwing money at the problem, or building factories (read sweatshops) as was tried in the 1980's and 1990's. When the Haitian people demanded higher wages, saying they could not live on $1 per day, Disney, among others, packed up their factories and moved to China. Poverty ends when those in poverty are given the means to end their situation on their own. 

Yes, money, but also opportunity. Build the factories, but pay decent wages. Help them re-build, but teach them how to build earthquake-safe buildings and provide some of the materials to do so. Educate them in reforestation techniques and send teams to work with them to do so. Don't take over the airport or the rebuilding, but collaborate with them. Instead of saying they have nothing and not government, take what they have and ask what they want and build on it. Don't patronize them as David Brooks has done. Learn the lessons of colonialism and understand that ensure that this rebuilding effort--and that of Iraq and Afghanistan while we're at it--are not perceived as such.

When people such as David Brooks talk about the futility of aid, he ignores the responsibility this country has for creating the situations that caused the poverty in the first place. Their situation has nothing to do with the color of their skin. Their is nothing inherently different about the drive or motivation of one person from another except perhaps that if you live in a home where your parents and their parents and all of your cousins, and neighbors, and classmates go to college and have good jobs and can expect certain things out of life, then you probably have the kind of environment in which you can learn. If you have proper nutrition, good medical care, annual dental visits, a safe place to sleep, time to play and exercise instead of having to work or care for siblings while parents work, or scavenge for food every day, then when you go to school, you are better able to pay attention and learn and retain and recall information. 

Just as an example, a study by Hart and Risely (1995, 1999) found that by the age of 3, parents with a professional background had used over 30 million words when talking to their children, while parents with low-incomes had used on average 10 million words. Other studies have found a definite correlation between high linguistic ability early in life with success in school. From a sociologist's standpoint, we also know that when the parents support learning, when the parents read and have books or magazines in the home and read to their children or even when the children observe their parents reading, it reinforces the behavior which translates to improved performance in school. Translated to 3rd world countries, to Haiti, poverty goes far beyond race. 

And before people bitch too loudly about the money spent on Haiti (which I personally think is too little), according to Kiilu Nyashu at OpEd News,

"...Obama threw a party that cost $50 million more than he's sending to Haiti. Yup! He spent $150 million on his Inaugural Ball. We also learned the following:

Top U.S. Firms are on pace to award $148.85 Billion in payouts for 2009, according to a Wall Street Journal Study. Billions with a B!

You can also buy a Beverly Hills mansion, a yacht, or a painting for more than the relatively meager sum Obama is donating. Obviously, we cannot rely on this government to do the right thing by Haitians in their hour of need. It never has."

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.

k 

Rush Limbaugh Demeans Military. Glenn Beck Piles On.

Digby has a great post about Rush Limbaugh, saying that his comments slamming aid to Haiti are actually demeaning the military and a military mission. Calling their current endeavor "Meals on Wheels" is a great thing for the soldiers to have to listen to on Armed Forces Radio. Great for morale.

Digby also adds that Glenn Beck has chimed in, equating the disaster in Haiti with the Fort Hood shooting. Beck said:

"I also believe this is dividing the nation…to where the nation sees him react so rapidly on Haiti and yet he couldn’t react rapidly on Afghanistan. He couldn’t react rapidly on Ft. Hood. He couldn’t react rapidly on our own airplanes with an underwear bomber…it doesn’t make sense. [...] Three different events and Haiti is the only one. I think personally that it deepens the divide to see him react this rapidly to Haiti."

 Let's see.  Afghanistan. Obama did exactly what he said during his campaign that he was going to do. He took time to deliberate his options and weigh the ramifications of the various courses of action presented to him. The GOPhers got upset because 1) Obama is a Democrat, 2) he did not instantly do what the generals wanted, and 3) he considered the costs of what was being asked of him. Unlike Bush, Obama actually include war spending in his budget which is why his budget figures looked so bad. General McCrystal verged on insubordination by releasing a confidential report as a way to force Obama to give him what he wanted, but what the GOPhers forget, is that Obama has to think about 2 wars, recruitment, other hot spots in the world, and all the other ways the military is used (disaster relief anyone?). McCrystal is concerned only with Afghanistan. That was made abundantly clear.

Fort Hood. I seem to recall hearing from the White House pretty quickly. I don't think I turned on my stopwatch, but who cares? I know that if Obama is sitting in a classroom reading to a class and someone flies a plane into a building, he probably won't continue reading the story, nor allow his wife to sit in the Situation Room and participate in the decision making while he flies off to an undisclosed location (Cheney).  I know that it took  Bush 6 days to respond to Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber which is the equivalent situation to the Christmas Day Bomber.

Now, a truly equivalent situation for comparison? How about Hurricane Katrina? Remember "Good job, Brownie?" Remember how long it took for Bush to take action? Remember how long it took for New Orleans to be rebuilt? What was that? Oh right. We're still waiting.

Of course, Beck is the man who called the 9/11 families and the Katrina survivors scumbags. Very compassionate. We all know that there is no comparison, no equivalency. If Obama had an (R) after his name, he would be hailed as a savior for his actions in Haiti. It does not matter what he does or does not do. Limbaugh and Beck will only attack and smear.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Frum on Beck-Palin Conversation

David Frum,  made a very important observation regarding the hour-long love-fest between Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin yesterday. [emphasis added]

"Republicans used to be the daddy party – the party of responsibility, of rules, of the hard truths of life. Yet these two pre-eminently visible spokespersons for conservatism and Republicanism talked for a full hour about their … feelings. They talked about trust and betrayal, they talked about wounds and hurt, they talked about spirituality and even relationships. But they pronounced scarcely a word about any external reality: war, recession, the long-term prospects for the country. It was like a scene from a Marin County fern bar in 1977."

Neo-populism on the right not only has the appearance of ignorance, it is ignorant. In the past, populists tried only to appear unintelligent to their followers but were actually quite well-educated and intelligent. Today? It is all in God's hands. Intelligence is a flaw.

Truly frightening.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Our Culture of Violence Makes Tasering 8 Year Old Okay? I Blame the Becks and Palins of the World

My interests are the intersection of sociology and politics, and as such, I've been watching the growing use of tasers. I have to wonder at a culture that believes that violence is the appropriate solution to, well, everything. Yesterday, the Anti-Defamaton League (ADL) announced that Glenn Beck is the most toxic hate monger operating in the U.S. today. He and Sarah Palin and the extremist fringe of the far right preach a brand of violence that is cloaked in religiosity that they believe makes it acceptable. Palin did not quit her job, she stopped to "reload." Citizens are reminded that Thomas Jefferson himself said that "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots." As do most fundamentalists, quotes are cherry-picked from the original source to support whichever claim is needed at the moment. In this culture of violence, more and more extreme behavior becomes acceptable, and becomes not the behavior at issue, but the individuals involved.

Now, the police have tased an eight-year-old girl. Unable to get her child to go to bed, unable to stop her tantrum, mom called the police. Compounding that stupidity, they responded. Attempting to carry the child to bed (I wonder if the officer has any children of his own, otherwise he would have known better), kicking and screaming, she kicked him in the groin. So of course he tased her. Does he think she kicked him in the balls on purpose? Does he think an eight-year-old knew the best place to kick for maximum effect? Doubtful. The child, of course, became quiet and obedient immediately. Did mom and officer then put her to bed? Maybe take her to the hospital to ensure that she had sustained no damage from the taser (she weighs 65 pounds)? No. He arrested her for assaulting him and took her to youth detention.

In statements the mayor and police chief say

"People here feel like that he made a mistake in using a Taser, and maybe he did, but we will not know until we get an impartial investigation," McDaniel said. The state police declined his request Tuesday, saying it only gets involved if the officer in question was accused of misconduct or targeted in an internal investigation.

Police Chief Jim Noggle said no disciplinary action was taken against Bradshaw. He said Tasers are a safe way to subdue someone who's a danger to themself or others. "We didn't use the Taser to punish the child - just to bring the child under control so she wouldn't hurt herself or somebody else," Noggle said. If the officer tried to forcefully put the girl in handcuffs, he could have accidentally broken her arm or leg, Noggle said. He said a touch of the stun gun - "less than a second" - stopped the girl from being unruly, and she was handcuffed, he said. "She got up immediately and they put her in the patrol car," McDaniel said."

I'm sorry, but are there any parents reading this? I cannot imagine ever, ever calling the police to resolve a tantrum. Sure there were times when things got out of control. Fortunately, I like to think I was a pretty good parent - my kids tell me I was - and we rarely had those kinds of problems, but I think every parent has at least one story to tell... But seriously. What do you do when your child is kicking and screaming and yelling and refusing to go to bed? You walk away. You go into the other room, shut the door, and ignore them. I guarantee it, they will stop. It may take a little while, but you have to wonder at the parenting skills of a mother who has those kinds of problems with an eight-year-old. By the age of eight, bedtime is not normally an issue. I would guess that bedtime was the least of the reasons that child was screaming.

I know that our police have a difficult job and have to face scary situations every day. They never know what will happen when they walk up to that car they have just pulled over or what they will encounter when they respond to that domestic violence call; two of the most potentially dangerous situations police officers encounter. But an eight-year-old? There was no weapon reported. The child was 4' 6" tall, obviously a clear threat to a male police officer. Right. Violence has become too easy as a response to every situation. It is preached to us in the media, every day.

Within the police culture, there is a growing use of force to respond to verbal abuse, passive resistance, and the failure to instantly cooperate - even if that failure to cooperate is the result of a disability caused by a health condition or intoxication. Many times, police officers are unable to judge the cause of the resistance and discover later why the individual that they tased was not cooperative.

I am not certain when it became illegal to behave towards police officers with anything other than immediate courtesy and respect. Certainly resisting arrest is illegal, but in every definition that I could find, resistance was defined as assault and battery on the police officer or running away. Not hesitating to jump into the police car or offer one's hands out for handcuffs. Verbal abuse? Swearing? Anger and raised voices? Not pleasant. But dangerous? Life threatening? Requiring the use of physical force? I do not think so.

I could devote this blog to cases of police officers using tasers on persons who were on the ground, in handcuffs. Persons who were sitting in their vehicles unconscious. High school students who were in the hall without a hall pass. A paraplegic who had been pulled out of his wheelchair to the ground, then tased. But I won't. Other instances are detailed in a post I wrote here.

Beyond the actual use of tasers, is a culture that sees their use and shrugs, and turns the page. Of a media that listens to the Glenn Becks and Sarah Palins preach a message of hate, of death, and of division, and simply "reports, you decide." Journalism used to be about questioning, researching, and pointing out errors in what our national figures were saying. Now we have our national media figures angry because the citizens notice the lies and reject the message of hate. These figures feel attacked and threatened and incite even more violence. They claim religion as their guide, and wave a stern, vengeful God who evidently approves of a culture that would tase an eight-year-old child.

Why do I connect Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and tasers? I write about the sociological intersection of politics and culture. Our society has become more and more violent. In the past forty years, we have embraced a law and order mentality and move away from a rehabilitation model. The behavior of our police is becoming more and more reactive, and they are less and less often expected to take responsibility. 

After all, it is not the behavior that is at fault any more. It is the label worn by the individuals involved. The President is good/bad depending on the label. The victim is good/bad (or even a victim) depending on the label. Someone is a murderer or not, depending on the label. Police always good, Republicans always good, Conservatives always good, Christians always good. Ignore sex tapes, adultery, ethics violations, bribery, murder, lying, any of the sins mentioned in the Bible, or laws on any of the books. Wear the right label, and it does not matter. Do good, be good, but wear the wrong label? Bad.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Palin & Beck Projecting Anger Will Incite More Violence

Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the others or their ilk are inciting violence by projecting their anger and hate onto others. Palin's cavalier attitude about lying is obviously something she feels is acceptable, and probably so because she has projected that attitude onto others. If you assume that everyone lies, then it is okay if you do it.

I've talked here a little about projection. It is a term that is extremely important to understand in the therapeutic process, and something that counselors pay attention to as we watch for transference and counter-transference. Most of the time, it has little effect on our day to day life if we are reasonably healthy (from a mental health standpoint) and functioning well.

What many people do not understand about mental illness, is that in all cases except one,* a necessary criteria for a diagnosis of a mental health disorder, is the effect on the ability to function. An individual may have a delusion, but if the delusion does not otherwise interfere with the activities of daily living, then a diagnosis of a disorder is not appropriate.That does not mean that an individual cannot have symptoms of a mental health disorder and exhibit features that are typical of someone with poor coping skills, one of the more common being projection. It also does not mean that everyone with poor coping skills and difficulty functioning has a mental illness. It is all too easy for armchair psychologists to diagnoses those they see in the news and decide what they should or should not do. Just as we complain about the pundits making pronouncements we disagree with, it is too easy to state that those we disagree with have some sort of mental illness.

Projection occurs when you place your fears and insecurities onto someone or something else. Everything that you dislike about yourself, everything that you are afraid of,is out there. The qualities you least like about yourself are those you are most likely to react to in others. Does the saying "thou doest protest too much" ring a bell? Are you having an affair, or seriously tempted to have one? You probably feel guilty about it, which sets up a cognitive dissonance. The brain does not like dissonance. It is uncomfortable. To resolve it, it projects those feelings onto someone else, so you believe your significant other is cheating, thus making your behavior okay. Do you cheat on your taxes? Then you assume that everyone else does. Do you lie? Even "tiny" lies (and tell me, where exactly is that line)? Then so does everyone else.

We assume that everyone else is just like us, that they behave like us, that they think like us, and that they will respond like us. We also believe that if people look like us, they will like us, so we like them. People tend to like those who like them, so if you like those around you, they will most likely like you. We tend to agree with those we associate with, and conversely, people who associate with us tend to agree with us. This is called the false consensus effect. It is an interesting dynamic and one that organizers of Tea Parties and Town Hall disruptions and other similar events understand. I am certain that along with all the other experts employed by public relations firms, social psychologists hold an important place.

People who project their fears and insecurities on others, have learned to avoid responsibility and to blame others. By projecting what is wrong onto someone or something else, you do not have to deal with it. Is everything going wrong in your life? Are you having problems at work or at home? Can't get along with your neighbors? It's the governments fault, those illegal immigrants, those minorities, that fake president, or something out there. It is not your fault, so you have no responsibility to solve the problem. It is somebody else's problem to fix.

If people don't look like us, then we become confused, especially if we have no frame of reference for dealing with people that are not like we are. Our normal method of processing information is shaken, and we look around for something or someone to help us and we become vulnerable to the likes of Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity; people who look like us and appear to have authority and talk and act as if they know what they are doing. When our locus of control is external, then we look to external sources to regain control.

Someone like Glenn Beck is projecting all of his anger and hate onto the people he blames for everything wrong with this country; President Obama and the Democrats and progressives. It does not matter what the president does, what Congress does or does not do, because they are who they are, it has to be wrong. Glenn is so full of rage and has focused that rage on President Obama, that he must generate ever more illogical "facts" to maintain the emotional momentum he is building. It still is not clear whether or not he believes what he is saying or whether or not he is in it purely for the money, but it is clear that there is an underlying hate in this man. He has incited acts of violence that have caused death. He continues to do so and laughs about causing the deaths of those he disagrees with. At this point, his motives don't matter. What matters, is that he has a national platform, a lot of followers, the support of the Republican Party, and a society with a lot of deeply disturbed people looking for directions.


Stop and think about this for a moment. He laughs about the possibility of Speaker Pelosi dying, and of his causing her death. He laughs at the thought of the President dying. He laughs at the thought of revolution. What does revolution mean? It means death, war in the street, people dying. He assumes that his followers are just like him. That they believe as he does. He opens his show and tells his viewers to "be sure to DVR this." And they do. What else will they do?

Sarah Palin is on her book tour this week. Over the weekend the AP fact checked her book and found numerous instances of out and out lies, which she referred to on her Facebook page as "opposition research." What is that? On Oprah, she accused "Obama's people" of coming to Alaska after the election and doing "opposition research" and claimed it as one of the reasons for her resignation from the governorship. Why would he? Why would he care? And again, what is "opposition research?"

On Keith Olbermann's show last night, he had great fun showing video clip after video clip side by side of lies told. One thing said a year ago and reported differently in the book. Most of them so trivial it was dumb to lie about it. Rachel Maddow had AnaMarie Cox on her show to discuss Sarah Palin's treatment of Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace (McCain campaign staff) in the book. Again, out and out lies easily verified through emails, video, and statements from others who had been present during the events spoken of.

But remember, in the Palinverse, just like the Beckverse, and in the world of those who are unable to cope with their own problems so project them onto others, everyone lies, so they do. All of their problems are caused by factors outside their control - in this case, President Obama - so they blame him. Sarah Palin lost the election (funny, I thought McCain did), so therefore it was the fault of everyone who worked on the campaign. The facts weren't quite interesting enough in the book, so re-write the scenes and make them fit the Palinverse. Have the truth come out? Oh well. Everyone lies. So what. That's what life is like in the Palinverse and how she wants to recreate our country.

Why should we care? Because there are many, many people in this country who are angry, scared, confused, filled with rage, hurting, and deeply disturbed. There are many, many people who have lost their jobs, their homes, their health care, and thus their medications. People who have trouble coping and who have perhaps begun to (or continued to) self-medicate themselves as a way to cope. People who watch Fox News and grasp onto anything they can as an external locus of control, any way possible to blame someone else. Glenn Beck does it. Sarah Palin does it. Rush Limbaugh, the head of the Republican Party does it. Our legislative leadership stands back and allows it and in fact, appears with them and tacitly supports them. So we are sending the message to these people that violence is the answer. We are sending the message to people who are deeply angry and deeply disturbed that violence is okay.That these powerful, important people would like for the powerful, important Democrats to be dead.

President Obama receives on average 30 death threats per day. This is a 400% increase from the average 3,000 per year that President George W. Bush received.

The people that Sarah Palin speak to, that she is trying to attract, are the people who carry guns to presidential events. When asked by Oprah what her plans were for a presidential run in 2012 were, she responded with something her father had said, "She didn't quit, she just stopped to reload." Shortly afterward, a woman called into a newspaper in Michigan and threatened "to do what they did at Fort Hood" because she didn't like an anti-tea party editorial. Carrie Prejean runs around crying about her free speech supported by Beck and Palin, and their supporters threaten the free speech of others?

AnaMarie Cox suggested last night that with this book, any political aspirations that Sarah Palin might have are over. Other political pundits disagree, saying that with a Republican party membership at about 20%, and a primary field so large, it is very possible that Sarah Palin could win the nomination. She really doesn't need that many votes to actually win the Republican primaries. Many Democrats say yay, no way could she win against Obama. But look at the progressive and Democratic anger against Obama. Are we sure? She may be a liar and a joke, but even the Joker was dangerous.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

* DSM-IV criteria include as a condition for a diagnosis, an impairment in the ability to function in one or more of life's major activities, except one, dysthymia, which is characterized as a low-grade, chronic depression, sort of like always having the blues, but not enough to really interfere with your day to day life. So in effect, a legitimate DSM-IV diagnosis, treatable, but does not require the criteria of functional impairment.

So Now NY-23 Doesn't Matter? Sarah Palin's Balancing Act Ahead

We certainly live in interesting times. Off-year elections typically generate as much interest as a limp teabag, and that is apparently what we've got in upstate New York. However, the day after excitement is almost as high as that leading up to the election. At least for us political junkie types.

Interesting side note (h/t Media Matters) that updates a comment in my last post. It seems that Adam Nagourney of the New York Times reported on Monday that a loss in NY-23 would be disastrous for the Republican Party (despite the fact that Doug Hoffman, the challenger ran on the Conservative Party ticket) and will highlight the deep divisions in the party. Today, NY-23 is not even on the radar as he exclaims that the Republican wins will energize the party and set the stage for fund-raising, attracting candidates, and whipping up the base.The significance of a loss in 23, now? Not so much.

The greater implications, in my opinion, are to Sarah Palin. Her behavior is clearly that of someone who is planning to make a run for president in 2012, although someone who either has very poor advisors, or more likely, someone who knows it all and refuses to listen to those advisors (you just cannot ask people to pay to hear you speak in Iowa, a state you must win if you want to win the primaries).

Palin's decision to support Hoffman in NY-23 and her victory in running Scozzafava out of the race energized the Tea Bagger fringe of an already weakened party. Not quite 20% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans at this time, and Sarah Palin has clearly decided to chart her own course. By refusing to attend Republican events over the past year, and now supporting Hoffman, it is clear that Palin believes that she can either re-form the Republican Party or form her own.

Interestingly, in demanding purity - as defined by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh - Republican leaders who had been supporting Scozzafava immediately threw their support behind Hoffman as soon as Palin and Fox News did rather than suffer the media backlash that would most certainly have occurred. Republicans planning to run in 2012, particularly Pawlenty, who was the most surprising because of his previous moderation, almost shoved each other out of the way to jump on that bandwagon.

Rather than widen the umbrella and try to appeal to a wider base, the Republican Party is following the wacky GOPhers on Fox News and the blogger from Alaska. This may win them local elections, but no one can win the presidency without independents, and regardless of how Obama does or does not do on the major issues, it is unlikely that independents are going to vote for the Tea Bag candidate.

It will be interesting to watch Sarah Palin balance on that fine line as she tries to hang on to her Republican supporters as she moves further and further into the wacko extremist right.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Upset in NY-23 is a Referendum on Sarah Palin

Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin should be so proud. A small upstate New York district, the 23rd, which has gone Republican for the past 120 years tonight voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens. The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, who had dropped out over the weekend, had thrown her support behind Mr. Owens, but still received 5% of the vote. Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Candidate endorsed by Sarah Palin, et al, was the odds on favorite until late in the evening and ultimately conceded defeat. All the big time names Hoffman had behind him couldn't get him elected.

It seems that the residents of NY-23 don't appreciate out of towners coming in and telling them who to vote for, especially as the person they are being told to vote for 1) does not live in their district, and 2) knows little about the local issues of concern to them (and has said that he is more concerned with the larger, values issues in any case, to paraphrase).When he appeared for an interview at the local paper, Hoffman whined that he should have been given the questions in advance. Huh? Since when? Regardless, they had been in the editorial in that morning's paper if he had bothered to read it. How many politicians running for office do you know who don't read the opinion page of the papers in the districts they're running in? Well, one, now.

Republicans may have won big in Virginia and New Jersey, but a sweep? A referendum on Obama? I don't think so. Do I think the Democrats and in particular Obama need to do some serious thinking about the implications for 2010? Absolutely.

But if this is a referendum, it is a referendum on Sarah Palin and the Republican Party, not the Obama Administration.

All we've heard was how NY-23 was a microcosm of the Tea Party movement, the change that the country wanted. Sarah Palin said jump, and the Republican Party said "How high?" I watched the Twitter streams this afternoon and evening, and when it became clear that Hoffman was trailing, I started to see that "Oh, 23 is incidental." Or, "It's just a small, unimportant district." Right.

As I liked to say about W, you can say it as often as you'd like, it still doesn't make it true.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon,.
k

Police Called in NY-23 Race for Teabaggers

Evidently Teabaggers object to government intrusion, but they are allowed to intrude to their hearts content. Police were called to at least two polling sites in NY-23 district today for reports of voter intimidation. According to former State Democratic Chairwoman June O'Neill,

"We've gotten reports that people are standing there, covered with Hoffman stickers and yelling anti-choice stuff at voters," said O'Neill, a St. Lawrence native who has been running the party's GOTV effort for Bill Owens in NY-23.


"Apparently, there's some woman claiming to be a commissioner," O'Neill continued. "Commissioner of what, I don't know. She's from Texas, I think, and she won't leave."


"This is not the way we roll in the North Country."

Elizabeth Benjamin of the New York Daily News reports talking to the GOP Election Commissioner who tried to minimize the incident saying

"We had electioneering within the 100-foot polling marker," Phaler said. "It's my understanding that they were asked to leave and wouldn't leave."


"If people are electioneering within the marker and don't stop when we ask them to, our inspectors are instructed to call law enforcement to assist them. I don't think anybody was arrested."

I'm sure by the end of the day we will have more clarity on the issue, however, after the Tea Parties of last summer and the exhortations of Glenn Beck and his ilk, shouting appears to be the favored method of debate by the extreme fringe of the right wing. Hoffman, running on the Conservative ticket and "mentored" by Glenn Beck, is supported by this fringe so I am inclined to believe that their tactics are likely to follow the rules of engagement laid out by the Tea Bag organizers: that being, shout, get in someone's face, shout some more, refuse to allow anyone else their opinion or right to free speech, shout some more, and deny everyone else the rights you demand for yourself.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

George Will Tells Cheney He Should Have Dithered

I don't normally have much use for what George Will has to say, although his breaking ranks and saying that it was time to leave Afghanistan was much appreciated, but this morning on ABC's "This Week" he said: [emphasis added]

A bit of dithering might have been in order before we went into Iraq in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction," Will said on ABC's "This Week. "For a representative of the Bush administration to accuse someone of taking too much time is missing the point. We have much more to fear in this town from hasty than from slow government action."

Unfortunately, regardless of the esteem in which he is normally held by the right-wing, George Will I am sure will now come under attack by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and the others in the right-wing hate machine.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Glenn Beck is Projecting, and the Violence Will Escalate Because Of It

Unfortunately, it was a stunt, but he does not realize what he has done.



I can't recall a clip or quote of Glenn Beck's in which he hasn't called someone something vile. Fascist, racist (President Obama), ... or suggested that people trying to help this country were in fact trying to harm it.

It's one thing to have differences of opinion. That's fine. But Beck is either delusional or disingenuous. And by the way. It's not name calling to simply point out the truth.

When Obama legitimately won the election, Beck called for revolution. He claimed that the 2nd Amendment was under attack and incited fear to the point that 3 police officers were killed in Pittsburgh (the shooter claimed that he acted because of the ban on guns that Obama was planning, according to Beck). He stated that he hated 9/11 victim families and started a 9/12 movement (or tried). He suggested that FEMA was setting up concentration camps so President Obama (who he nightly called either socialist, Marxist, or fascist) could round up Americans in order to create his Totalitarianist society--something that he did not bother to "debunk" until weeks later. Beck joked about poisoning Speaker Pelosi, going so far as to set up a skit with a staffer in which Beck encouraged 'her' to drink poison-laced wine as he giggled at the camera. And on, and on, and on.

So he brings on this psychiatrist to help us average people learn how to handle name calling. How to deal with the stress. How to cope.

What the psychiatrist should have talked to Glenn Beck about is something called projection.

Projection is when thoughts and feelings you are unable to acknowledge about yourself are assigned to someone else. Feel guilty about cheating on your significant other? You believe they are cheating on you. Think someone doesn't like you? You don't like them. There are different forms of projection; neurotic, complementary, and complimentary.

Neurotic projection involves your projecting what you (unconsciously) least like about yourself onto others.

Complementary projection occurs when you believe that everyone thinks and believes as you do.

Complimentary projection assumes that everyone else can do things as well as you can.

This last is socially helpful as social psychology teaches us that we typically think the best of people who are most like us so if we are around people and can project that they are like us, we are more likely to like them, and thus get along (the false consensus effect). People who organize the Tea Party events and the Town Hall protests are very aware of social psychology, as are , I'm sure, the people behind Glenn Beck.

Projection is of interest to psychologists and counselors, as it prevents real connection between people and interferes with the therapeutic process. Projection tends to occur in paranoia as they project their negative attributes onto others and believe that nobody likes them. Projection enables us to turn neurotic anxiety into reality anxiety and takes our internal locus of control (a position of strength) to an external, and thus weak, locus of control.

It's much easier to be anxious of something out there than have to deal with internal neuroses and moral ambiguities. If it is the government, or immigrants, or minorities who are at fault for everything that is wrong in your life, then you have absolutely nothing to do to fix your problems. The locus of control is external. It is out of your control.

Projections makes behavior about someone else, not about you. It's not your fault, it's theirs. If you respond with violence, you're entitled to protect yourself. They're out to get you. It feeds on itself and when the Glenn Becks of the world are given a national media platform assuring you that you are absolutely correct in this view, then the paranoia deepens, the projection widens, the behavior worsens. He has validated their beliefs. By adding a psychiatrist to his show to help his listeners (and no, dealing with every person and situation as you would with a drug addict is beyond ridiculous - it's called a one-note-wonder) he validated my belief that this man is just another extreme- right-wing operative, laughing all the way to the bank.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Glenn Beck Needs Medication

Okay. I know I'm not supposed to diagnose anyone unless I sit down and do an in-depth evaluation, but seriously folks. I think Glenn Beck needs medication.

In my previous post, I noted that the list of lost advertisers numbered 36. I was mistaken. It's 48. More have joined the list.

On his show Thursday, he spoke of Obama's army, showing clips of among other things, Black Panthers and Louis Farrakhan, and his trademark incomprehensible whiteboard scribbles showing links and secret messages if you line up words in some order that makes sense only in his mind, all to prove the President's secret plot to take over the country. The problem, which he seems not to comprehend, is that you could take any collection of words, line them up any way you want, and come up with all kinds of secret coded messages. The fact that Louis Farrakhan in one of his rants tells his audience that President Obama's election gives blacks power is somehow proof to Glenn that the President is taking over the country.

You see, in Glenn's world, if the words are spoken, they are true. But...

(Big but coming)

Words are only true if spoken by the right people. And I mean right in more ways than one. Pun very much intended.

What is so sad, is that we are a country of people raised on sound bites. Republicans care about power, money, and taking care of business. They discovered that by co-opting the Christian right, and pretending to values they neither own nor live, they have convinced a significant segment of the population that they share their values, that anyone who is different is to be feared, and the worst sin of all, that government is evil.

Even sadder, is that Democrats, coming from a perspective of inclusion and desirous of a Socratic method of developing consensus, look for the good in everyone. They come to public service with shiny bright ideals and want to reach out in peace and harmony believe that everyone truly wants to reach a compromise that has the best interests of the country at heart. After they've been there awhile, they learn how it really works and play the game.

When Democrats have an opportunity to really accomplish something, as they do now, they've forgotten how to stand up for themselves. They've never learned how to use the sound bite, to fight back on the Republican playing field, and have no conception of what to do with all the power they hold in their hands.

That's why while Glenn Beck is losing advertisers, his ratings go up. His mental stability deteriorates and he earns praise. If this is an act, give this man an Emmy.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Fox Won't Fire Glenn Beck: Here's Why

A truly excellent post from the editors of Buzz Flash on why Glenn Beck is here to stay.

Before I discuss their post, let me explain a little bit about corporations and why they matter so much.

Most people don't understand the power of the corporation, its attainment of personhood, and the role of the GOP, and its mouthpiece Fox News in shaping the direction of our country, regardless of the results of elections.

In an 1886 Supreme Court ruling (or some say, clerk's misunderstanding of his notes) in the case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was extended to include corporations, granting them full rights of personhood.

What's the problem you say? Well, you're one person, one vote, one paycheck (okay, maybe 2 if you and significant other both work), one checkbook. You can get together with others of like minds and interests and form groups and parties and coalitions, organize grassroots efforts to effect change (maybe), but you're still one person. With the coming of the tubes, you can become a citizen journalist and if you have any skill at all, and follow the basic rules of blogger etiquette, eventually you can develop a following and some influence of your own.

A corporation, however, has formed expressly to protect itself financially and legally from you. You as "we the people." You as "the government." You as consumer. You as employee. As a registered "Inc.," a company has protected its management and board from being sued (or rather, from any financial liability if the company is sued).

If you sue a corporation, and by some fluke should actually win, the money isn't going to come out of the personal checkbook of anyone employed by the corporation--even if someone personally employed at the corporation is personally responsible for whatever damages have been done to you. It isn't even going to come out of the checkbook of the corporation. It will come out of the checkbook of the insurance company who has underwritten that particular liability for the corporation, and so on and so forth. This is the framework upon which our country is built.

I thought this was about Glenn Beck you say. It is.

Corporations by definition, are big. They have lots of money and can afford to pay to hire lots of lawyers and accountants and lobbyists (many of whom are former politicians) and advertising companies, all of whom have formed themselves into corporations themselves. Have you ever noticed when you go to the doctor, or looked at the doctor's bill, that they're usually a corporation? Small, but still. It's all about that layer of protection between you and them.

I was a corporation once--it's a sound business decision if your business is big enough and at the time, spouse and I had numerous reasons for forming our company that way. I say this in the interest of full disclosure and to say that corporations aren't in and of themselves bad. It's being granted personhood and what people have then done with that that is bad. There is a difference.

With corporations, then, their power is in their size and their resources. They have deep pockets, they have lots of attorneys on retainer, they have access to politicians, and access to the media through the marketing firms they do business with. They usually have whole departments devoted to public relations who can develop print and television advertising to get their message out in any way they want it out. They can overpower one person, or one group. If you sue a corporation, they can bury you in paper and wait you out. As one person, they participate in elections in a way that many say drowns out the voices of everyone else by virtue of the resources they have to draw on.

Not all corporations sell products or services. Not all corporations are known or understood and many are owned by multi-national conglomerates whose connections are so complex, that trying to figure out who is in bed with whom, is nearly impossible.

At this point, 36 companies have pulled their advertising from the Glenn Beck Show because he called President Obama a racist. After a short time off, he has been allowed back, but appears not to understand why he is losing advertisers, or to care. Boycotting a company works, for a time, but Fox News is counting on the fact that eventually, boycotts end, people forget, and advertisers will come back. They are also counting on the fact that they will be able to replace lost advertisers with others who won't care about possible boycotts.

And, according to Buzz Flash, Fox News is well aware of why he is losing advertisers and they are delighted. This is why.

• He incites extreme right-wing hate
• They can carry him indefinitely by advertising other Fox shows on his
• He churns up so much hate and is so evil, he makes the rest of the Fox crew look nice; Hannity almost civil
• By urging his followers to blame all the ills of society on the government, immigrants and minorities, he has diverted attention from the corporations fleecing society to others and propagated a philosophy of hate for the GOP to build on

So why on earth would they let him go? They are thrilled.

By the way, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad is soon to be revisited by the Supreme Court--or at least the role of corporations in federal elections. In the upcoming session, the court will take up the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and a video about Hillary Clinton. It will be a case to watch, not just for constitutional reasons, but because it will be the first for Judge Sotomayor.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

It's Called An Election

Poor Glenn Beck. He's up to 36 advertisers who have bailed on his show, and is now pleading with his viewers to call a friend to watch his "week long special" about the "New Republic." Anything to get someone, anyone to watch. He seems not to understand that we were dissatisfied with the old administration and the old Congress, so we elected new ones. It's called democracy. The Democrats won, the Republicans lost, that's why he doesn't like the direction the country is currently going.




Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Sean Hannity Fakes the News, Again

Why do progressives call it Faux News? Sean Hannity has a remarkable facility for creative editing, showing passionate outrage over something President Obama has said, getting his viewers worked up by something that was said, but neglecting to include what pre- or succeeded what Sean shows us.



Has he done this once or twice? No. This is business as usual for Faux News, and for Mr. Hannity. Media Matters, a media watchdog group that follows Fox and other media outlets and posts discrepancies whenever found, has put together the following clip to demonstrate a few examples of what happens when you selectively edit a video clip, add a dollop of outrage, a smidge of passion, and end up with an audience believing that they have a President who has done something he hasn't, is someone he isn't, and wants things he doesn't.

What does Hannity and Faux News want? Whatever their boss Rupert Murdoch wants. What does Rupert want? Power. How do you get power? Money. How do you get money? By owning most of the media in a market. How do you own most of the media? By owning the politicians. How do you own most of the politicians? By owning the media. How do you own the media? By owning the politicians. How do you own the politicians? Money. How do you make money? By owning the politicians. By owning the media. By controlling the message. By manipulating the markets.

Does anyone honestly believe that Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, et. al., really believe everything they say? Rush Limbaugh? Or do they believe in their multi-million dollar paychecks. Eeny-meeny-miny-mo. Hmmm. Decisions, decisions.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

The Race to the Bottom

What a bunch of white men (and one white woman) are saying about Judge Sotomayor.



The oppressed class, gender, or race cannot be accused of the "ism" that has been perpetrated on them. It is a fallacy and a way for the (in this case) racist to continue being a racist. By accusing Judge Sotomayor of being a racist, Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, et. al., continue to inject race into the discussion and in fact make race the discussion and avoid any substantive conversation or having to back up any of their claims.

Fortunately, they are making a terrible mistake and (finally) the Republican leadership is beginning to realize that enough is enough. Today, John Cornyn, Chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee said, "I think it's terrible... This is not the kind of tone any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent."

Perhaps others will begin to listen to Senator Cornyn. Or, as is more usual, we will hear Senator Cornyn begin to take that back in about 1-2 days or face attacks by Rush.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

An Officer's Obligation by Matthew Alexander

Matthew Alexander writes about torture from an officer's perspective in An Officer's Obligation and provides what should be required reading for all the talking heads at Fox News, David Broder at the Washington Post, Bill Kristol, and Karl Rove. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity should be required to read this on-air, Beck without any of his cutesy facial contortions and sad-sack put on.

They are fond of talking about the Constitution, about our soldiers, about how Obama has put the soldiers at risk by banning the use of torture, by releasing information on the practices of the Bush Administration, that the liberal right and the Democrats are somehow anti-veterans because of their deliberate mis-reading of a report written during the Bush Administration that states that returning veterans might be at risk of being recruited by right-wing extremist terrorist groups.

They so (deliberately I believe) misunderstand the military, the veterans, and the Constitution, that I'm not sure they could understand Mr. Alexander's point when he says:

Military officers have a sacred responsibility that is embedded in their oath of office: "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."

He goes on to explain how:

The Constitution specifically prohibits cruelty to any person in the Eighth Amendment ... unusual punishments inflicted"). Those officers who ordered, authorized, or were complicit in the torture and abuse of prisoners violated their oath of office. The United States has a rich history of military ethics dating back to General George Washington during the Revolutionary War. According to General Washington, "Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any prisoner...by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country." He said this in 1775, during a time when the birth of our nation hung in the balance.

Probably his most important point, is as he speaks about the capture and interrogations of detainees in Iraq, men who did not provide valuable information. Mr. Alexander speaks about the value of these detainees as opportunities for his men to learn to improve their skills, to become better interrogators. He said:

We are Americans and we are smart enough to win the battle of wits in the interrogation room. We cannot afford to doubt our abilities. We should focus on improving our methods within the legal framework of Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution. And military officers have a heightened responsibility to effect change and to lead our interrogator corps to its full potential. We are smart enough.

Mr. Alexander understands, in a way that the talking heads and politicians do not, that interrogation is about trust, not torture. That as a country of law, be are no better than terrorists is we use their tactics is we give up the law in order to protect it.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k