Matt Taibbi Attends Palin Rally & Explains Teabags

 Illustration by Victor Juhasz

Truly remarkable article in the October 15 issue of Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi. Called Tea and Crackers, Taibbi discusses his exploration of the Tea Party, what it is, who its members are, and what they truly stand for.

The article is quite lengthy but well worth the read. Several points are worth special note, however. [All emphasis added] After making three trips to Kentucky, Taibbi attends a Sarah Palin rally:

"Scanning the thousands of hopped-up faces in the crowd, I am immediately struck by two things. One is that there isn't a single black person here. The other is the truly awesome quantity of medical hardware: Seemingly every third person in the place is sucking oxygen from a tank or propping their giant atrophied glutes on motorized wheelchair-scooters. As Palin launches into her Ronald Reagan impression — "Government's not the solution! Government's the problem!" — the person sitting next to me leans over and explains."

[...]

"A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can't imagine it."

The money quote?

"...Vast forests have already been sacrificed to the public debate about the Tea Party: what it is, what it means, where it's going. But after lengthy study of the phenomenon, I've concluded that the whole miserable narrative boils down to one stark fact: They're full of shit. All of them. At the voter level, the Tea Party is a movement that purports to be furious about government spending — only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits and spent the past two electoral cycles frothing not about spending but about John Kerry's medals and Barack Obama's Sixties associations. The average Tea Partier is sincerely against government spending — with the exception of the money spent on them. In fact, their lack of embarrassment when it comes to collecting government largesse is key to understanding what this movement is all about ..."

[...]

"Suddenly, tens of thousands of Republicans who had been conspicuously silent during George Bush's gargantuan spending on behalf of defense contractors and hedge-fund gazillionaires showed up at Tea Party rallies across the nation, declaring themselves fed up with wasteful government spending"

[...]

Much of the article is a discussion of Rand Paul and his transformation from a fringe candidate to a candidate truly of the GOP when he won the primary, and the genesis of the movement created by money interested in manipulating people dissatisfied with the results of the 2008 elections.

"After nearly a year of talking with Tea Party members from Nevada to New Jersey, I can count on one hand the key elements I expect to hear in nearly every interview. One: Every single one of them was that exceptional Republican who did protest the spending in the Bush years, and not one of them is the hypocrite who only took to the streets when a black Democratic president launched an emergency stimulus program. ("Not me — I was protesting!" is a common exclamation.) Two: Each and every one of them is the only person in America who has ever read the Constitution or watched Schoolhouse Rock. (Here they have guidance from Armey [of Freedom Works, the corporate funder/creator of the tea party movement and anti-health care movement], who explains that the problem with "people who do not cherish America the way we do" is that "they did not read the Federalist Papers.") Three: They are all furious at the implication that race is a factor in their political views — despite the fact that they blame the financial crisis on poor black homeowners, spend months on end engrossed by reports about how the New Black Panthers want to kill "cracker babies," support politicians who think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an overreach of government power, tried to enact South African-style immigration laws in Arizona and obsess over Charlie Rangel, ACORN and Barack Obama's birth certificate. Four: In fact, some of their best friends are black! (Reporters in Kentucky invented a game called "White Male Liberty Patriot Bingo," checking off a box every time a Tea Partier mentions a black friend.) And five: Everyone who disagrees with them is a radical leftist who hates America."

[...]

And my favorite quote, speaking as it does to my professional opinion:

"It would be inaccurate to say the Tea Partiers are racists. What they are, in truth, are narcissists..."

I have quoted at length from this article, however, I would strongly encourage you to read it in its entirety and share it with your friends. I made sure to share it on Facebook hoping all the teabags in my extended family will take a look...

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Lara Logan Calls Reporter a Liar for Committing Journalism

I've always liked Lara Logan. I always liked Christiane Amanpour and other women strong enough and brave enough to report from war zones and do, what I believed, real journalism.

For years, women on the news side of television were little more than talking heads, hired for their appearance and instructed on how to wear their hair, how to accessorize, and what to wear. Not real journalists, they read what they were given to read and if seen at an actual news event, it was usually as a celebrity presence, not as a reporter.

I have enjoyed watching women on television news age; their jaws becoming slightly less firm as did mine, their waistlines a little thicker, and their smile lines staying in place when they stopped smiling. A few years ago, women were fired when they were no longer Miss America beautiful; now they are allowed to be human, mostly.

When Michael Hastings wrote his article about General Stanley McChrystal in Rolling Stone that led to the General's firing and eventual retirement from the military altogether--reported yesterday--the backlash was not against McChrystal and his reported disrespect to his Commander in Chief. The backlash was not toward his staff and the frat boy atmosphere that encouraged such a wealth of material for Hastings to choose from. No. The backlash was against Hastings for having the temerity to write such an article. And the backlash was from the mainstream media who were universally appalled that a "reporter" would so abuse the honored privilege he had been given by writing so negatively about General McChrystal. The consensus was, "Rolling Stone? Who cares what they say. They're not 'real' journalists anyway." Fortunately (unfortunately?) the readers of Rolling Stone (including evidently the President), do care.

The most egregious example, to me, was an interview given by Lara Logan on CNN. The rising star of the Afghan war with her glowing reports conducted while embedded with the troops, Ms. Logan has, apparently, the gravitas to give the final word on the actions of Mr. Hastings. Not.
WATCH:








Watch Hastings appear on the program earlier:







Talking to the oh so neutral Howie Kurtz on "Reliable Sources," Logan claims that:

"Michael Hastings, if you believe him, says that there were no ground rules laid out. And, I mean, that just doesn't really make a lot of sense to me ... I mean, I know these people. They never let their guard down like that. To me, something doesn't add up here. I just -- I don't believe it. "

Using loaded language, she referred to Hastings' "game" when describing his earlier comments about his methods to build trust between himself and the subjects of his report. She denied that reporters write only positive articles to ensure continued access to their assigned "beats" saying,

"What I find is the most telling thing about what Michael Hastings said in your interview is that he talked about his manner as pretending to build an illusion of trust and, you know, he's laid out there what his game is. That is exactly the kind of damaging type of attitude that makes it difficult for reporters who are genuine about what they do, who don't -- I don't go around in my personal life pretending to be one thing and then being something else. I mean, I find it egregious that anyone would do that in their professional life."

What, the military didn't know Hastings was a reporter? Or are they so used to "reporters" who buy access by saying only nice, sanitized things about the conduct of the military?

Angered at Hastings' suggestion that reporters edit themselves in order to maintain access, Logan said: [emphasis added]

"I think that's insulting and arrogant, myself. I really do," Logan said, "because there are very good beat reporters who have been covering these wars for years, year after year. Michael Hastings appeared in Baghdad fairly late on the scene, and he was there for a significant period of time. He has his credentials, but he's not the only one. There are a lot of very good reporters out there. And to be fair to the military, if they believe that a piece is balanced, they will let you back. Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has."

Can she not see that she just contradicted herself? "...if they [the military] believe a piece is balanced, they will let you back." By whose standards? The military? What is balance? Is this the same military that  embeds journalists to make sure that they see what they want them to see and report what they want them to report? I remember watching images of Vietnam over the dinner table and know that it was those images that had a lot to do with the national mood that ultimately led to our leaving. Journalists in Vietnam were not "embedded" nor were they limited on what they could see, do, or say. As a result, we have a vivid, albeit ugly, history of our time in that country. And, we now have a generation of American's who have a real understanding--without having been there--of the real meaning of war, not the pretty, Disney version the Pentagon would have us see.

By the way. What branch of the military was Logan in? And this has to do with what, how?

Discussing the issue of "on-the-record" vs. "off-the-record," Taibi notes that although he works for Rolling Stone, he does not know Michael Hastings, but can sympathize for him after listening to Logan's interview because;

"...when some would-be "reputable" journalist who's just been severely ass-whipped by a relative no-name freelancer on an enormous story fights back by going on television and, without any evidence at all, accusing the guy who beat him of cheating. That's happened to me so often, I've come to expect it. If there's a lower form of life on the planet earth than a "reputable" journalist protecting his territory, I haven't seen it."

Commenting on Logan's remarks about the "understanding" between reporter and subject and trust that is built up so that--in this case--McChrystal knows he can talk freely knowing that anything negative will not be reported, a trust that she says Hastings broke, Taibi says:

"...the reason Lara Logan thinks this is because she's like pretty much every other "reputable" journalist in this country, in that she suffers from a profound confusion about who she's supposed to be working for. I know this from my years covering presidential campaigns, where the same dynamic applies. Hey, assholes: you do not work for the people you're covering!"

Somehow in this country, we have come to the conclusion that if we speak out against the war, we are against the troops. That if we show the horrors of war, we are anti-war. Clearly Lara Logan has become enamored of the military. Who wouldn't? Her rise to fame (and I'm sure, fortune) is directly tied to American's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is sad is that true support of the troops would be to bring them home, to fight the war they signed up for and then bring them home. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We "won" Afghanistan in 2002. There are (according to the military) less than 50 Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan at this time. Even McChrystal does not believe in his much touted anti-insurgency policy and President Obama is fighting a sinking approval rating and believes somehow that a withdrawal from Afghanistan will make him appear weak. It is the Lara Logan's in the mainstream media who are responsible for our going to war, our continued presence there, and the nation's ignorance of the true agenda of the Republican Party.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Sarah Palin and Her Redneck Jokes UPDATE: Link Fixed

P

PHOTO: fanpop.com

This is a couple of weeks old, but if you missed it, it is a must read for all us Sarah Palin watchdogs. Moving from True/Slant back to Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi writes about Sarah's trolling for jokes off the internet and the decided lack of substance in her speeches. Noting that she appears to have found a successful format for her particular audience, Matt says that:

"...I don’t think you can steal more than four or maybe five jokes before some kind of line is crossed..."

Plagiarism has been in the news lately, especially as she "borrowed" a poem which she tweeted for Memorial Day, later crediting Fred Thompson's previous use to avoid the already rampant plagiarism charges.

On a side note, she seems not to understand that Memorial Day is a celebration of those who have died, not her all-purpose support for the troops that she links everything to. Don't get me wrong, I support the troops, but I don't find it necessary to include that fact as a link back to every issue, discussion, or appearance. People who find it necessary to loudly and repeatedly proclaim something about themselves be it their patriotism, religiosity, or in this case, support for the troops, usually are projecting. For a discussion of projection, go here, or here.

Sarah chuckles at her use of Google to prepare for her various appearances - still lacking the self-awareness to understand that she looked foolish by telling Glenn Beck that she Googled the Statue of Liberty prior to their interview, assuming that because of the location of the interview that he would quiz her on it. She used quote finders during her campaign and in her book, and sees nothing wrong with helping herself to whatever she likes wherever she finds it (remember the swag bags?). Does she really imagine that we want a cutesy president? Especially as most of us outgrow cutesy at about age 13.

Matt goes on to note that whatever it is that she is doing:

 "She’s tuned in to the fact that her audiences literally can’t get enough of having their lunatic self-images massaged (“I’m a violent, illiterate pig who eats with her mouth open just like all you outstanding Americans!”) and aren’t really interested in much else beyond that — issues are really secondary."

"...all that boring stuff is really secondary to the more important business of reassuring her audiences that that it’s okay to be a slob who does nothing but shoot cute animals and watch TV. Most of all, Americans — the same Americans who buy everything TV tells them to buy and vote for the same shysters year after year, swallowing one lie after another whole — love to be told how tough and fearsome and independent they are."

Unfortunately, I think Matt is absolutely correct in his interpretation of her audience.

"It’s basically a risk-free strategy. You get up on stage and you say, “I’m just like all you idiots. And you idiots rock!” People will fall for this stuff. The ingenious part in Sarah Palin’s case is that she probably genuinely believes it."

I've mentioned before that we get what we deserve, and the rest of us will pay the price.

Talking to spouse last night and the point came up, what exactly do all these people think will happen if they achieve their goal of minimal government? They sit in their poofy recliners, watching their satellite dish tv machines, drinking beer and eating cheese-puffs and complain about government interference in their lives. They bitch about taxes and government takeover of healthcare as they put their twice-monthly paycheck in the bank and head off to WalMart to buy their Chinese produced toys.

If they lose their job, the first stop is the Unemployment Office where they demand that government do something for them, and if they have a heart attack from their sedentary lives, will expect 911 to send them medics in time and the emergency room staff to save them. If the neighbors are too loud, or the dog barks, they are the first to call the police to complain, and write letters to the editor or post on Facebook or blogs about those damned liberals who are trying to destroy their country.

They have no understanding of the concept critical thinking and believe that all members of their party believe as they do and if someone says they are Christian, then they share their belief. Self-awareness requires introspection and the desire to accept responsibility for those aspects of ourselves that are in need of improvement.

It is sad and it is funny, but it is also scary as too many Americans allow themselves to be lead by people who do not have their best interests at heart.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

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