Hacked “Climategate” Emails Did Prove One Thing

(NCTimes.com Blogs)

I keep my eye on politics, and since the uploading of some illegally obtained data from Britain’s CRU the political right wing has lost it’s mind. Science-denial has gripped them and they intend to brow-beat on anyone who questions their faulty logic. This hacking incident being called “Climategate” by the anti-environmentalist right wingers has brought to light to discerning observers that these people are divorced from all logic and rational thought. That they would defend any notion that fit into their preconceived world view regardless of an insurmountable body of research that clearly amounts to scientific fact.

The fact that almost every person the right supports this flawed and debunked theory that these emails prove anything beyond a level of professional bias being enacted against skeptics of the CRU is absurd.

Britain and the U.S. have a high number of global warming deniers and in the aftermath of this hacking it is found that the hackers are likely members of such a group in Britain so it is much like the other propaganda crusades of the right.

There is clear evidence of a willful ignorance on behalf of these people locked in outright denial.

--



Sara Palin wrote on her Facebook page recently:

“this is doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that makes the public feel like owning an SUV is a sin against the planet.”

I find it laughable that a woman who pushed scare tactics like “he [Obama] associates with terrorists” during the campaign suddenly thinks alarmism is so awful.

Her “environmental priesthood” is scientists around the world and not just environmentalists like myself. She is suggesting the that scientific community is invested in some larger scheme and it is completely manufactured on her part.

And this climate science is not designed to make “the public feel” anything. Science stands on it’s own, apart from this hyperbolic standard she has set up.



Al Gore responded to Palin’s comments:

GORE: Well, the scientific community has worked very intensively for 20 years within this international process, and they now say the evidence is unequivocal. A hundred and fifty years ago this year was the discovery that CO-2 traps heat. That is a -- a principle in physics. It's not a question of debate. It's like gravity; it exists.

What many environmentalists are loathe to point out is that like all recent science there is “wiggle room” around different aspects of the science in regards to causality, though most studies confirm the notion that man-made greenhouse gasses are the primary factor contributing to global climate change. The elements here that are simply not up for debate are exactly the elements the conservatives have grabbed on to and frankly at a certain point I have to just laugh.

--

Michael Oppenheimer, Director of the Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy Department of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School:

There is a mountain of scientific evidence pointing to human-caused climate change; all available to any skeptic. Colder than normal October in the US is not a climate trend, no matter how often it is repeated on uneducated blogs and by unintelligent cable news pundits. It remains true that Earth has warmed more than 1 degree (F) over the last century largely due to buildup of human-made greenhouse gasses. It remains the case that the projections of future climate change are every bit as discouraging as they were before the recent flap began.

Joseph Romn, physicist of the Center for American Progress:

Evidence of global warming is getting clearer, while opponents are redoubling their efforts at misinformation-disinformation campaigns.

============================================

UPDATE!

InformationIsBeautiful.net has an excellent online visualization of the real debate between climate skeptics and science at-large.

New York’s 23rd is a Victory for Democrats

For one-hundred and twenty years The State of New York’s 23rd Congressional District has been maintained by The Republican Party.

This has come to an end.

The voters have rejected Conservative-Republican ideals, once again.

This in no small part due to their infamous venom spilling forth unto their own kind in their quest of hatred of all who do not met their standards of ideological purity.

They have destroyed themselves in this district and they will continue with this pattern of crypto-fascist politics to destroy their chances of being taken seriously by any thinking person in the United States.

Some blowhards are crowing about minor Republican victories in races projected for their position to win in the first place.

The fact remains that the NY 23rd was uncertain up until this point.

Then the Conservative Party candidate, Hoffman, could not gather enough votes. He flopped with the voters, just as I had thought he would.

Just as we saw beforehand, America is ready for a change for the tired politics of conservatism.

Be is from the Republican side or the Conservative side, does not matter. People are sick of an ideology that empowers Wall Street at the expense of Main Street, and in the same breath of speaking of war & conflicts they seek to weaken & spread lies about the U.S. Government.

"American Right Wing Distaste for Government" by Stellaa

(This is a post from Stellaa's blog that I think deserves consideration.) 

-- 

 

Although this is indirectly about the healthcare debate, I want to step back and ask my friends on the right about their ideas on "government" and the Reagan cry that you hold dear: "government is the problem, not the solution" 

___________________________________________________ 

I am confounded by a paradox in thinking by conservatives and libertarians.  Let me see if I can break it down and not fall in the pit of confusion and distortion that they come seem to embrace with gusto.   

This is how the conservative thinking goes:

• American conservatives seem to own the symbols of patriotism.  The flag, the national anthem, the militaristic rituals, statues, songs and just patriotic bravado-- oh, they own the "founding fathers".  

• Yet, these same people despise their government.   The very government, that is the instrument the US Constitution, the mechanism by which our democracy is implemented.   The thing that has kept the "democracy" alive.  

• They deem this "government" incapable of any competence, except of course when that government goes to war, puts people in jail   or executes them.  Somehow, in their minds, government does that just fine.  

• They seek to strip the government of all powers and privatize all activity.  This sentiment, of diminishing powers is only when the other side wins.  Privatizing the government services is a constant theme, public goods should be for private gain.  

•  They cite the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, yet, they do not tell us, if we did not have a government, courts, legislators etc, who and how would that Constitution  be protected and or enforced?  Yet, unlike me, who only has a distaste for the second amendment, they would gladly trim the sails of all the other amendments.  So, why should government define marriage?  Why should government be involved in their reproductive decisions?  Why should government be entrusted with god?  Why should government control what we see, hear or read?  

• If it's the size of government they dislike, then why do embrace corporate bureaucracies?  The corporate bureaucrat does not have a public process where at least the citizen can file a complaint and get a hearing.  Public bureaucracies have provisions for change of unjust rules.   

So, Mr. Reagan and all his followers who blindly believe that "government is the problem", pray tell, how do you suggest we manage this democracy, this nation?  What are you offering to replace government?   Why do you trust and embrace government when it comes to imposing your values and yet you distrust government in mechanical functions?  

Think of a simple thing like building codes.  If we stripped those powers, tell me, tell me how the free market would make sure that the materials and the builders built habitable and safe buildings?  

 I have worked in government and have fought with government for decades.  I have little faith in the talk of change as long as we have elected officials who receive contributions and depend on being reelected.  

Of course I am cynical about many aspects of how this nation is governed, but damn if I am willing to give it up to a bunch of looneys with guns, corporate boards and "that void of the conservative alternative".   

What the f*** do you guys want?   How do you suggest we do this?  If tomorrow we eliminated all government in the US, what would this world look like?

Yes, there is the odd anarchist who will chime in and tell me how the whimsical free thinkers of the world will all hold hands and make sure, because they are such spiritual and righteous beings.  Trust they say  people will just do the right thing.  Yes, right, now go off and do a pantomime and wear some fairy wings and as soon as you are done, get married and become a meaner and nastier bourgeois pig than I could ever be.  

 

--

 

I often find that for all the claims of "godliness" that the right-wing in politics and specific people on the internet / media are some of the most hostile, mean-spirited, spiteful and unhumble people one could find.

 

I have posed the similar questions as well, when confronted with this.

With no coghent reply, ever.

 

I've decided this is all fine and dandy. The day they all burn their Social Security Cards, State Identifications, and Passport--then swear off all government roads and all government connected service--is the day I will start taking them seriously.

 

As for now they are acting as nothing less than unpatriotic traitors exchanging politics for fear-mongering.

Bill Clinton Downplays the Anti-Obama Rhetoric

Former President Bill Clinton appeared on NBC's "Meet The Press" and when asked about the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' that smeared him during his presidency he said this:

GREGORY: "Is it [the right-wing conspiracy] still there?"

CLINTON: "Oh, you bet. Sure it is. It's not as strong as it was, because America's changed demographically, but it's as virulent as it was, .. I mean, they're saying things about him [Obama] -- you know, it's like when they accused me of murder and all that stuff they did,"

I agree with the former president's assessment that we have changed demographically as a nation and that the virulence of the right-wing smear factory is as virulent as ever, but Clinton failed to touch on two critical points surrounding this current crusade of baseless slanders against these two democratically elected leaders.

Point One: The major platform to carry the broken logic of these claims was primarily talk radio when Clinton held the White House. Today these same kind of untrue slanders are carried by FOX News Talk Radio, FOX Cable News, and other talk mediums that include satellite broadcasting which did not even exist within the time he was in office. Then add on top of that a new spinster has come to rival Rush Limbaugh: Glenn Beck.

Point Two: The McCarthyist and anti-democratic rhetoric coming from the right-wing did not start until several years into the Clinton presidency but have begun almost immediately in the Obama presidency. Likely he seeks to try to disempower the media-jackals of FOX News, by evading the heart of the matter of the foundationless smears directed against President Obama he trying to avoid giving them bait.

But it must be said, these smears have propagated themselves in much more virulent manner and much sooner than they did for Clinton. It took them years to get around to accusing him of anything even half as extreme as some of the myths about Obama that have been floated around from several months back. What is worse is the very foundation of this conspiracy is not the same as the one that attacked Clinton. Only the tactics and one of the actors (Limbaugh) remain from that old sideshow.

This is far, far worse and I can not label it anything less than fundamentally un-American. It seeks to undermine our very system of democracy and our very system of public discourse.

--

The government is trying to kill you and everyone not with you is a "shill".

--

Or ... if it's not the wild conspiracy theories of those like Alex Jones, it's the equally wild claims of those like Glenn Beck.

--

The government is trying to control your life and everyone who doesn't think so is a "Marxist".

--

All of this is simply designed to sow fear and distrust for both anyone who supports any not of their opinion then simultaneously spread fear about the government at-large. In a democratic society we cannot afford to simply forgo coming to the table to discuss our positions with facts and reason then replace this with media-crusades and continuous vicious untrue labeling without dire consequence. Those who refuse to educate themselves except from known liars need to be recognized as dealt with non-credible.

--

The insidious plot that is in play here is of another caliber entirely.

--

It is a giant media body larger and the message is wholly anti-democratic then you add that we have race baiting going on against the first African-American president by both Beck and Limbaugh but nobody on the right wing ever cares that they engaged in it.

A certain element of racism exists not just in what Jimmy Carter said about some white people in the US not feeling a black man should lead this great nation, but also within this intense rush to judgment of Barack Obama in terms of the full scope of his presidency.

The matter of those on the right who wished to keep their children home from school because Obama would address the class in a video is more short-term example of this same rush to negative judgment.

I personally will allow no person to wrap themselves in this claim that anyone is saying that everyone anti-Obama is by value of that a racist.

What is disturbing is the number of people who obviously have never looked into what people are calling "racist" or "racialist" on the left but truly have a high level of indignation more about the fact that the issue is being discussed than anything else.

To not even entertain thought long enough to form any kind of argument begs the question if they are within heavy stages of denial.

Make no mistake, once these neo-conservatives no longer have an enemy to publicly defame and lie about they will go right back to trying to get people to vote for The Republican Party.

--

And the media in general is not helping by providing massive double standards in their intense questioning of Democrats, but constant softballs to Republicans.

Bipartisan Blogging Dies at Birth

When I first set forth to imprint myself upon the wildly evolving beast of the blogosphere I held with me a tenuous goal: to create a fully bipartisan blog.

A place that would be both policy and ideology neutral, yet dealt in real news topics.

While the value of this concept in itself still appears quite sound in my mind, I discovered through personal experience that throwing that concept away was the best thing I ever did for my blog as a rank amateur in the mix. (Still working on that.)


Blogger tis I:

My posting entitled “Ann Coulter Still Sucks” was one of first impressions unto this wild animal of internet-posting that I can claim to my credit. Every word of that is partisanship, I am completely unashamed.

My posting entitled “The Libra-Scorpio Cusp” is enjoyed by many. I point out an internet inconsistency between websites and briefly address my feelings on Astrology.

Recently I was honored to have received an Editor’s Pick on Open Salon for what accounts to the end result of these bipartisan efforts of mine.

I thank the Editors of Open Salon for the honor in being selected.

In course of presenting the issue of Jimmy Carter’s words concerning race in America, I unconsciously fell into my routine of trying to revive the lost art of bipartisanship.

I presented the words of Alan Wilson rebuking the words of Carter directly as to any racial motives in his father Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst.

I withheld the words of what I view as righteous indignation and retained myself to news-commentary.

However, my truly Bipartisan Blogging is dead. I fully intend to address every issue that I view as significant regardless of the possible offense drawn from that perspective.

Once you mix an opinion with a platform, you get punditry. Once the opinion is interjected into the Left versus Right Debate, it is already too late.

What remains within me though are the principals of striving toward fair play and equal consideration of alternative perspectives, and still with my own case intact. The value of this bipartisanship effort is lost, but the spirit remains intact. The reason being for this loss, in my view, has to do this the source from which it comes.

Despite all reports to the contrary, I am not a big deal.

The person to revive journalistic standards in the United States, is not I.

I instead must cry out into the wilderness to capture this beast, while those within the press need only touch a laptop. So is the way of things. But while ‘truth’ can be subjective, the facts are not.

--

“You can have your own opinion, but you don’t get to chose your own facts.”

--

I make a great many declarative statements in the course of blogging, formed primarily from simple political and media analysis, which accounts to online punditry.

But I believe strongly in full disclosure of the fact that I am a liberal and freely admit it may alter my world view in some cases.

But the facts don’t lie, and I believe in the growing majority of cases the facts are on my side.


Pointing Fingers:

It could be said that I am extremely critical of the right wing in US Politics.

If one were to ever take the time to read backwards into my blog it can be found that I have tried to draw a line between "Thinking Conservatives" and "Limited Conservatives".

Other times I have directly defended the specific quotes of both Carrie Prejean and Rick Warren.

Treading this line in not some political game on my part, but rather my honest opinion on those matters.

I believe that is what we have escaped from in the madness of mass computing and super-fast news-cycles. Partisanship sells books as much as it moves blog-hits, so perhaps some of these political shock jocks like Ann Coulter would rather be reasonable in her arguments, but it simply doesn’t pay the bills.

The truth being what is lost in this exchange, and I think that sort of thing is a shame.

I would much rather have a discussion in disagreement than just label others as “tools”, “fascists”, “un-American”, or “racists”.

But that creation of mine that might cross party lines, and maybe bring sanity to the mix to see what happens will have to wait for a another day. The raw truth of opinion should not replace factual evidence. Such is the road to tyranny.

So I have taken another road. I drew a line in the sand that allows me to say what I will of Republicans, or Democrats.

For instance, the Republican Party is currently self-destructing and the Democratic Party has dropped the ball on health care reform.

Such statements embody my current stage in blogging evolution.


Finale:

The spirit of political bipartisanship and the need for balance remains within me, but the middle ground is now mainly unattainable without the acceptance of false claims and baseless assertions. Any critical review of facts debunks most conservative mantras.

There is much to be said for ideological differences enhancing a debate but when the debate is centered around misrepresentations and sweeping accusations of assumed wrong-doing there simply to no room in which to move in.

I will most likely continue to be mistaken for a conservative by both machines that dictate ad banners and internet users alike, but this just a by-product of my attempt to split everything down the middle.

To me, most these differences are best settled in the voting booth at election time.

But if the accuracy of the information we receive is suspect and unverifiable then we have a responsibility as citizens to recognize this fact.

This tense political and social division has forever been an element of American Life, but I believe that the situation is amplified by media-giants who profit from the repetition of partisan smears of any person or group.

I can only pray for a day of more a more honest and non-biased form of journalism catching the eye of the American public, but I don’t see it happening anytime soon.




Eric Lightborn

http://ericlightborn.blogspot.com

http://twitter.com/EricLightborn

September 29th 2009

Alan Colmes -- Talk Radio

Overt Race Baiting From Limbaugh & Racial Politics At-Large

“In Obama’s America white kids now get beat up with black kids cheering, ‘Yeah! Right on, right on!’”

“When is the last time Gen. Powell endorsed a white liberal for president?”

“This whole election [2008] was based on race.”

These are just a small taste of the flagrant racialist sentiments that have come from the Pro-Republican ultra-conservative rightwing-mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh.

Not once has any major Republican party figure come out to distance themselves from these shameless attempts to drum up anti-black sentiment against Barack Obama.

While Jimmy Carter expressed what I thought needed to be said, the larger part of my personal feelings on the matter is that of the unwillingness to question those that present themselves as conservatives or Republicans but in truth engage in viscous race-baiting.

It is the lack of togetherness around combating racism that leads me to such reasoning.

If their movement was so invested in racial equality, wouldn’t they want Limbaugh thrown off the air? Or at very least to stop calling himself a conservative and just admit to being a Race-baiter more than he is anything else?

But, no.

He is a mainstay in conservative-talk and even the Chairman of The RNC, Michael Steele, wouldn’t stand up to him on a matter as simple as if Limbaugh was an “entertainer“ or not.

Obviously Rush Limbaugh is a Radio Entertainer, but these quotes are examples of exactly what kind of entertainment his program really offers. Race-baiting against African-Americans and vile, political hatred for all who disagree with him all wrapped up in one package.

In that much alone, bringing no other examples, I could say almost the same words the former President Jimmy Carter spoke that have sparked controversy except more directed on to the shoulders of mainstream conservatives than the anti-Obama forces.

This failure to reject the racialist statements of a popular political-talker on any real level begs to question if indeed many support these untrue and racially divisive statements.

In short, it is this defense of figures like Limbaugh or the defense of racist cartoons that promotes the idea in minds of some that perhaps racial motivates do exist far more strongly than political motives in minds of others.

--

PORTSMOUTH, NH - AUGUST 11: Police stand near protesters outside Portsmouth High School where U.S President Barack Obama is holding a town hall August 11, 2009 in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. President Obama is in town to speak about the need for health insurance reform to a crowd of eighteen hundred. (Photo by Darren McCollester/Getty Images)

“We have to take our country back!”

“Get your government hands off my Medicare!”

There are two reasons why I believe some of the extreme sentiments in The Health Care Debate are perhaps more than merely political partisanship from the right.

(1) The Patriot Act expanded federalism and government power, as well as government involvement in our lives, without anywhere near the same level of intense resistance from these same groups who claim to stand only for limiting government power.

(2) Republican President George W. Bush initially expanded federalism, once more in a single presidency, to include market recovery spending again without anywhere near the same level of personal attacks on his character.

The ideals of conservatism state that we should have let the market fall and just let the chips fall where they may. The ideals of conservatism state that creating more government is always the wrong direction and only limiting it is the correct course.

If this resistance was in fact some ‘grass roots’, ‘bipartisan’, ’community event’ based on conservative ideals then these same people would have held protests and thrown tea parties at the actual expanse in federalism, and not at this late stage.

This talk of revolution and talk of oppressive government certainly begs any level of credibility with even the most elementary review of facts. A disconnect exists between the level of outrage and the stances they claim to have hold dear.

It is important to point out, that I agree with Speaker Pelosi on the matter of astroturfing in the Health Care town halls.

I eluded to that in a previous post: “Marble-cake Federalism and Health Care Reform”.

‘Astroturfing’ is a political term you don’t hear often. It means that a big entity, like a medical insurance company, is funding the protestors by means of paid-provocateurs and organizers usually working as private contractors.

I am not trying to belittle or demean those that have issues with the Health Care bills or issues with the very notion of government Health Care Reform.

I am only saying that in my view all these events don’t add up.

The problems in Congress and the deficit issue or the many other points I have heard made never include addressing why these issues, that have been this way prior to the election of Barack Obama and during the presidency of George W. Bush, are suddenly such strong points of contention.

I would remind everyone of the Obama Stimulus and how a very similar message was present in those speaking out in public and in the media but none of them ever explained why they neglected to protest or even voice their opinion when Bush issued a Stimulus Check and bailed out the banks.

Non-explanations combined with a specific rejection of specifically this president combined with intense pre-judgments, like the charges of “indoctrination” or despotism coming from people on the right wing when Obama merely addresses school children, are the reasons that I support Jimmy Carter in confronting the issue instead of shying away.

Frank Luntz is a Word-Weasel

Rightwing pollster Frank Luntz is out promoting his new book: “What Americans Really Want, Really” and getting his definitions completely wrong in regards to Political Science, which I seriously doubt is an amateurish mistake.

On Alan Colmes Radio, Luntz continued the conservative rhetoric that United States of America is a “center-right country” and his words in explanation of this were very revealing as to his own personal bias against getting the definitions right, even when those words might not serve your own political ends.

“This is a center-right country but the definition of ‘Center-Right‘ has changed. ‘Center-Right’ doesn‘t mean keeping government out of our lives anymore, .. now it means fighting corruption.”

This is the Word-Weasel at work.

Fighting corruption in both government and private sectors has always been the ideals of The Progressive Reformist Movement since it's inception and these ideals have remained as a fact of American Life since then. To attach his own ideological group to these values is outright inaccurate.

Frank Luntz is very good at catering messages that appeal to conservatives and work well for The Republican Party but I find the notion that he is not affected by political bias in most of his statements completely absurd.

Center-Right has, and always will, mean exactly what Luntz claimed on the air that it does not mean.

It is clear to me that he feels free to change the definitions of words as he sees fit in order to further his own personal political agenda. If he cannot admit that the nation obviously shifted to Center-Left with the election of a Democratic President, and the ambitions of sixty House seats being attained by The Democratic Party then I am left to question the very conclusions of his work.

No doubt he has attained a great deal of significant data in his 6,000+ focus groups he used to compile his recent book, but if the standards of recognizing professional bias and personal bias are ignored then the conclusions of the body of work become suspect.

This is a Radio-interview Review, not a Book Review, so that body of work is not my focus and I invite anyone interested to avail themselves of this literature.

My only point is that if Frank Luntz is going to change the definitions of sound science to fit his image on a radio show, it begs to question other matters of credibility as well.

In his credit, I don’t believe he ever joined in the hateful mantra of “socialist” aimed at liberals, Democrats and mainly Obama.

On the list of all the partisans out there, Luntz is a minor offender.

But I still find it the worst of offenses to change the words to fit your needs, and considering they call him ‘The Words That Work Guy’; I think maybe it should be elongated to ‘The Words That Work No Matter What Guy’.

Frank Luntz is a smart cookie. But I’d personally almost compared him to Karl Rove, myself. Dancing around the truth has never been part of The Scientific Approach.

--

What Americans really want, really, is for pollsters to stop telling them what they think when it’s really just what the pollster thinks about what you think.

Dick Cheney Fails To Understand American Values

Former Vice President Dick Cheney continues to obfuscate the truth and tarnish the name of all Republicans by means of standing up for cruel and unusual punishment of military detainees.

Appearing on FOX News Sunday recently, the former Vice President continued to advocate a dangerous and sick agenda by claiming pride for the torture and prisoner mistreatment that occurred under The Bush Administration.

Beyond this outrageous fact Cheney made a statement that I see as a direct affront to very heart of American Values, like he has never done before.


WALLACE: “So even these cases [of interrogation] where they went beyond the specific legal authorization, you're OK with it.”


CHENEY: “I am.”

This was a true testament to how divorced Dick Cheney remains from any understanding of our national standards of justice and our mutual values as a people.

Cheney clearly declares that he cares nothing as to the pursuit of justice to those that break the law under the blanket of authority claiming to pursue justice themselves.

This country does not accept any person or body to be beyond the law and Cheney insulted this nation by supporting the notion that supporting illegal actions under government supervision are acceptable in a free nation of laws.

Bigots Against Islam Run The Republican Party

The hatred of others based on their faith is the favored tactic of the Anti-Obama Republicans in this current political climate. If this hatred was directed at another religion the whole of the American public would reject this bigotry as unpatriotic and down right sick. This propaganda and lies about Islamic faith is tolerated by Republicans because many Americans chose to believe lies, such as the misnomer that the majority of Muslims are in fact terrorists, in place of speaking with their fellows whom may be more directly connected to the truth of the matter than a pack of lying pundits.

Racism against Arabs and bigotry against Islam seems perfectly acceptable to millions of Americans, while racism against Blacks and bigotry against Christians or Jews is downright unacceptable. These Republican Americans and their conservative counterparts seem to believe that civil rights extend only to certain colors and certain faiths.

These disrespectful and partisan Americans put into question their dedication to the principals of non-discrimination in our society. Until major representatives of the Republican Party denounce this bigotry and racism in their ranks they remain in my mind a continued threat to peace and national security in the United States of America.

People Who Voted McCain Hate Obama, Big Surprise

I follow politics on both sides of the coin.

In my view the turning point for the McCain Campaign was the selection of Sara Palin.
The Thinking Conservatives removed their support in droves while the Limited Conservatives found a new poster-child for Partisan Logic.

Aside from the racism allowed to crop up in the Republican Campaign and the market crash under a Republican President, the Conservative Americans who actually think about their positions for longer than the span of a thirty second sound byte could not accept the ‘Say it so, Joe’ Logic and the overall presentation of John McCain’s pick for VP.

Many asked themselves and openly begged the question:

“If John McCain made this bad a decision for Vice President, then how can we trust him to make the right decisions on the war on terror.”

I am trying to draw a connection between the Obama-Hate Committee found on right wing radio and FOX Broadcasting with the vague demagogue figure of religious and moral authority found in the Governor of Alaska and her bid for the vice-presidency in 2008.

I think this group is just loud, and well-funded. Most, if not all, popularity of extremist presidential bashing from the Media Republicans comes from people who want theocracy and the destruction of American Liberty in the name of unfounded ideologies.

There are of course exceptions and a rare pack of conservatives can formulate a fair review of the Obama Presidency thus far, but they increasingly move into the minority as Media Hacks and Partisan Pundits rule the conservative-media.

Rush Limbaugh is Dr. Evil

The Radio Comedian Rush Limbaugh is best understood as a real-life version of the character Dr. Evil from Austin Powers.

Plotting and scheming in some ceramic bunker with his inner-circle of minions, his many Snurgly clones of course, gathered round to hear his daily machinations delivered via flashy jumpsuit!

In The Comedian’s case the issue is just to constantly stay in the news and stay relevant to someone, somewhere.

A lot of people seem to think we need an Anti-Limbaugh, or an Austin Powers, to appear and vanquish this foe. I think that Dr. Evil’s Empire falls apart when people start catching on to his game.

It’s all a house of cards of his own making. His own minions would throw him away if he ever had a level-headed view of anything to do with President Obama. The jackals would consume their master in a heartbeat if he stepped off his ‘ordained’ path even in the slightest.

So Dr. Evil plays his game and works his magic but when people can see the same of tired bag of tricks again and again, they tend to catch on.

“Pet my Snurgly! Pet him!”

There Will Be No Radio Fairness Doctrine

Former President Bill Clinton can now be added to the list of big name Democrats that have eluded to or outright mentioned the Fairness Doctrine in radio-media.

I will boldly speak out turn and say now that there shall not a return to the arcane legislation of the Fairness Doctrine where an opposing opinion must be made time for after any political opinion is expressed.

Though John Kerry, Bill Clinton and other figures speak of a need for media regulation I think the issue was already addressed by President Obama when he requested that conservatives stray away from partisanship like that of The Radio Comedian Rush Limbaugh.

This is the clear stance of this administration that partisanship is any form is counter productive in politics. The partisanship found on FOX Network airwaves and conservative-talk radio was challenged thusly by the Executive Branch. I see no moves from this office toward this matter beyond what we have already witnessed.

This issue simply doesn’t rate high enough on the presidential ‘to do list.’ The outcries from the far right wing that this inane legislation from days gone by are paranoid delusions created to fabricate the image of ’persecuted’ conservatives.

The right to Freedom of Speech has always challenged Americans in terms of what they will accept in terms of their politics and their news media. Those like myself who have educated themselves on some aspects of modern media know about the Radio Fair and Equal Rule.

In the Fair and Equal Rule a political campaign that receives airtime must have due consideration and / or equal airtime.

I foresee no threat to the talk radio medium spreading further into FM, satellite and internet formats.

Though I also would not predict any ‘explosions’ of talk radio, but rather just a gradual integration. The Politic-Talk Medium will always remain, no matter what paranoid conservative pundits say.

Loyal Opposition No More

For many years I have felt that for all our disagreements between liberal and conservative individuals there was a shared position by both sides. A loyal opposition to the opposition.

For the time being I believe the majority of the conservatives of America have thrown down this national system of civil loyalty in politics in place of a pure obstructionist agenda.

I have not heard any amount of logical rebuttal to an Obama policy or policy proposal, except in very rare cases.

I find I cannot listen to the standard bearers of GOP right wing radio these days. Like most people I have my ‘hang-ups.’

Dismissive attitudes and screaming people down end up on my list.

Every time I have been listening to conservative talk radio, or GOP responses, since the election of Barack Obama I am disgusted by the complete lack of integrity and grace in politics.

Reducing everything down to simply ‘name-calling’ is not the issue. Though it is important thing to avoid as much as possible.

Not sticking to the facts about our democratic representatives and our recent national historical history is unpatriotic.

I wish it were not so. And no group can claim to innocent of some form of vitriol in these times.

But not having an actual political dialogue and instead presenting vague facts along with connect-the-dots logic is simply dirty pool.

Difference Between a Liberal and a Conservative?

We hear this question posed often in our lives, if we are a political person ourselves.

I recently heard a response to this question on the radio that I disagree with, but I still believe desires to be heard. I offer it as but an anecdote:

Question: "What is the difference between a liberal and a conservative?"

Response: “Think in terms of kind and unkind.”

While this sentiment starts to address the huge gap between these ideologies it only touches the most bare and stereotypical edges of the matter.

The truth of the matter is more that historically both liberals and conservatives morph and relocate themselves throughout the political spectrum in all nations. Only certain key values and standards define each group and it is easier to grab one specific location and timeframe than to just say all liberals or conservatives are so.

Modern American liberals are clearly defined against modern American conservatives in terms of their views of separation of church and state.

Modern American liberals are clearly defined against modern American conservatives in terms of their views of the use of military budgets and international policies.

These kind of statements are the only real response to this question and it is obviously verbose to try to answer this question with what sounds like reading a textbook at someone.

It is said sometimes that these groups are defined by the members they attract.

I believe this only partly defines the ideology and the group.

The common views and desires are the true backbone of every movement.

Some claim the liberal movements to attract the more ‘fringe’ elements of society while conservative attracts a more ‘common’ element of society.

That may have been true in days past but in our world, right now, the conservative movement has attracted the truly fringe elements of our society in the past national campaign and to this day on talk radio and certain websites. Unquestionable willful destruction of non-partisan debate is expressly un-American.

I think my own answer to this question is more like an answer one might get from a wandering mystic:

Response: “Ask me again when you know which one you are.”

I think if someone is even asking this question they are just fresh into politics. All political types, even myself, must claw backwards into our memories to a time when we were mostly apolitical and remember that nobody comes out of the womb with a position on taxation rates.

We form all these things we call ‘opinions’ as we go. So cut a break to people who were spacing out on their nation when we needed them the most, because we still need them now that they are paying attention.

This Machine Kills Fascists : Woody Guthrie

Ain't got no guitar. Not no more. Some fellow done run off with it. But this here laptop done be my guitar.

And I aims to kill me some fascists. Got this here on the dime of Uncle Sam.

Fellow named George W. Bush gave little old me a check and here we are.

Do believe I have heard a talker or two call Mr. Bush a fascist. That I do recall hearin' of this man.

But ain't no fascist alive that let's his power slip. Not no how, no way.

Them two fellers Obama and Bush did a just dandy job and handin' over the reigns of Lady Liberty from one to another.

Here in the good ol' US of A we still have a fondness of old fashioned democracy. Letting the folks decide.  

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

Woody Guthrie was a singer and songwriter who came of age in Oklahoma as the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression all but destroyed the homes and lives of many of those around him. A natural wordsmith who loved music, Guthrie turned the stories he saw all around him into songs -- some funny, some deadly serious, and nearly all dealing with his vision of a better and more just America. Guthrie roamed the country much of his life, performing with the left-wing Almanac Singers, writing a column for the Daily Worker, publishing a wildly entertaining autobiography called Bound for Glory, working as merchant seaman, and raising a family in between. A handful of the 3,000 songs Guthrie wrote have become standards (most notably "This Land Is Your Land," "Pastures of Plenty," "Deportees," and "Grand Coulee Dam"), and it's all but impossible to imagine the work of Bob Dylan or the rebirth of folk music in the '50s and '60s without his guiding influence. Woody Guthrie: This Machine Kills Fascists is a documentary which offers an honest and unblinking look at Guthrie's life and career, featuring interviews with friends, fans, and historians who offer insight into his music and the man behind it. Mark Deming,   -- All Movie Guide

Common Sense for Michael Steele

New RNC Chair, Michael Steele, claims to stand against obstructionists in his first speech then condones the stagnation of the Obama Stimulus bill in the House by Republicans, shortly thereafter.

This is shameless hypocrisy that reminds me of the previous tactics of Republicans that have done nothing but twist politics into a double-pretzel.

When interviewed about abortion and gay marriage, he explained that certain issues comprised his core beliefs and could not be compromised. In an earlier comment he expressed that he sought to avoid those who simply talked a lot and wanted no resolutions done.

Steele fails to understand that the Democratic Party is easily equal to the Republican Party in terms of members who do not back down on core ideals and core beliefs.

One such core belief is that legislation should pass without a partisan standard of approval in both the House and Senate.

It is obvious that it is nothing more than a partisan agenda of the Congressional Republicans to keep the Stimulus package under a Democratic President from passage due to the fact that the last Stimulus and the equally large Bailout under Republican President Bush received quick and bipartisan support, without any major concessions to the Democratic Party included therein.

The fact that not even one Republican voted for this bill, even after the requested tax cuts and concessions were included, proves beyond all anecdotal commentary on the exact specifics of the package that the opposition is simply against all policy with no need for explanation or discussion.

These actions prove that the current agenda within the RNC is simply to reject all policy proposed or supported by President Obama--in a dangerous game of raw politics.

It is the responsibility of Michael Steele to encourage the Congress to come to a constructive level of progress in this time of great economic instability.

I do not, thus far, share in any level of elation that some have expressed within the Democratic Party with this new chairmanship of the RNC.

There is no more time for these word games and the extremely familiar partisan-stalemating in America today.

The game-clock has run out and there is nothing but lasting damage done by such an obvious favoritism for Republican sponsored bills and immediate scorn associated to a Democratic sponsored bill.

To be fair, no Chair can be expected to be able to effect a great many votes in the Congress just after receiving the such a position.

I am simply stating that if the situation reversed, I would chastise the DNC Chair for taking such a narrow view of policy.

Steele was in a unique position to help put an end to Republican-obstructionism in modern-American government.

Instead he chose instead to be vague in his declaration against such a serious matter.
I would have hoped that the broad declarations against Americans and the vague comments eluding to items of a serious nature that often amount to slander would come to a close within the RNC and its members with the losses of 2008, but it appears that the tactics of distraction are not dying out as hoped.

Another unsettling element is that he speaks as if the Republican Party is not in great need of reconnecting its core foundations with its message and representatives after such a serious national defeat.

It is unfortunate that the need for keeping up appearances is keeping what I tend to believe to a genuine and honest man in his convictions from telling the simple truth that he has a lot work ahead of him if he wants to keep "conservatism" within the American dialect of politics in years to come.

I would like to attempt to dispel this term "common sense" from politics, that Steele is so found of.

"Basic knowledge" about civics gives a person both personal political perspective and helps with a debate on policy.

"Common sense" is to not running with scissors and taking good care of your health or things like not swearing in a church and being polite to others.

I see plenty of basic and advanced knowledge in the RNC but very little common sense. This has not changed in any fashion, in my view.

Lastly, the former-Congressman David Duke expressed that he saw Steele’s election as a "dark day" in Republican history.

I think that is simply absurd, and that Duke is a racist.

It is simply more of the same from the past eight, in what I see so far.

I find it difficult to find excitement and relief, at this time.

The Markets and You

I cannot stress enough that each American can take easy steps to help our nation in tough times.

Many believe that spending the stimulus package funds exclusively on American products and services will serve to boost our markets more directly.

This may be true, but the bottom line is that using the funds along with savings to make wise investments or spending the money in American retailers and outlets is the only method by which any future packages would show any results.

Informing yourself on not only the best prices on the products you enjoy but which major retailers, energy companies and industries are of the best interest to our nation can lead not only to more stable markets but a greater degree of national security.

Economic strength and stability provides the higher quality intelligence services and personnel staying within the American interests.

For an informed American to claim they have their end of the economy handled in share, they would do well to understand a concept rarely addressed in any media format. The overall strength and robustness of any economy comes not from what is tracked as the DOW JONES or other market averages but rather within the actual number of jobs produced and inherent to that economy.

Also understanding that you are indeed putting real assets into the market by paying bills, or with a highly modest fiscal investment, and need not make rash expensive purchases or risky investments to help build the economy up. In fact such actions may further degrade the once monolithic American markets.

Building a smart economy from the ground up is not outside the ability of any single American to help contribute towards.

Starting a small business, taking on a second or third job and hiring on more staffers to an existing business are not easy options for most Americans in the recession of 2008.

Nonetheless, these three options pose the greatest chance of enhancing the American economy in a very real way in days to come.

The last aspect of the market discussions in American newsmedia that is mainly unaddressed, is that each President cannot be held as strongly in referendum over the number of jobs created or lost under their Presidency as to the issue of the national budget or foreign policy affairs.

Job loss, or creation, is a vital element of reviewing how well any President has governed over the United States of America but an epidemic of job loss, or explosion of jobs, could occur well outside the powers of office and at any time.

It is not to say that actions in office cannot hamper or stimulate job creation but rather that each job market is wholly unique.

Eric Lightborn
http://americapress.wordpress.com
December 20th 2008

Lobbys, Lobbyists and Interest Groups

“One study of eighty-three (primarily liberal) public-interest groups found that one-third of them received half or more of all their funds from foundation grants; one-tenth received over 90 percent from such sources. In one ten year period the Ford Foundation alone contributed about $21 million to liberal public-interest groups. Many of these organizations were law firms that, other than staff members, had no members at all. The Environmental Defense Fund is supported almost entirely by grants from foundations such as the Rockefeller Family Fund. The more conservative Scaife foundations gave $1.8 million to a conservative public-interest group, the National Legal Center for the Public Interest.” [Wilson, DiIulio 2008]

The concept of using public interest groups to promote the agendas and ideals of a movement is, by this source, not exclusive to the liberal movement but heavily favored by it thus far.

President-elect Barack Obama may ultimately isolate himself from major liberal movement members if the proposed audit of Washington politics were to take a lasting toll on the liberal lobbies. The next four years will certainly answer just how far this coming administration is willing to go to remove corruption in public interest group finance and practice, but four years from now there will also once again be a national referendum on the highest office.

Should the effort ultimately take power from once strong lobbies for popular liberal agendas, the informed American Democratic Voter could potentially face a struggle at the polls when considering a vote for the incumbent President.

The power of an interest-group, in a classic design, should expand as the number of members and contributors expands. The ‘funded & unoccupied lobby’ described in quote above as a law firm is a critical element of what causes the real disruptions in Washington politics.

The figures and organizations that form the American lobbies and public-interest groups of today are not necessarily the root of the problem so much as the agendas of the highest funded public interest groups overriding the highest agendas of the wills of the people.

--

If the National Legal Center for the Public Interest (a weak lobby) were to receive a large increase in both number of members and in contributions. they should rightly increase in the voice and recognition in Washington and receive foundation grants in turn.

If the Environmental Defense Fund (a strong lobby) were to lose both member and public support their voice as a lobby should rightly decrease and even though they do not receive a majority in foundation grants they should be kept from taking them if they lacked any significant support in the public domain.

This is all within a classic definition of how the public interest groups should work. Any number of factors can increase or decrease the power of a single lobby and for this reason most of us limit our discussion on public-interest groups, or lobbies, to the number of members that are well-known or outspoken and the money behind the group.

--

Lobbyists are not are always motivated by ill or by good, despite the fact the lobby they work for is focused on a critical social issue or an important national matter that concerns you--or perhaps for a group with which you disagree strongly.

To speak broadly, they are like salesmen of political stances a person in Washington should take.

They are not invested into the case they are making in every single case but rather deliver the best argument in favor of the lobby that they can devise.

Politicians and lobbyists are very much the same, in many ways.

Without means to search the hearts of others to know for sure if they really believe what they contend or if they are simply going with the popular ideology to gain your favor, we will never know for certain if they stand for the people or if they stand for their own private interests.
We can only judge their actions in office as solid statements of policy.




Eric Lightborn

http://americapress.wordpress.com/

December 2008

Four Stories Concerning America and You

“Taking the stories not covered or picked up out of fear by the mass media, The America Press.” -- The America Press Project

Everyday of our lives the newsmedia picks out certain stories to cover and certain stories to ignore.

This process is called playing the "Gatekeeper".

Here are four stories I believe all Americans should know about if they do not already:

1.

There is a running claim from the Bush Admistration that a large amount of yellowcake (chemical-based WMD) was found in Iraq. They have come forward that the intelligence provided in 2002 to Congress and the American people was in fact not as credible as they once believed it to be. Newsmedia groups have failed to find voice the source of this information and present the case to the American public thereby removing the running claim from fringe discussions in the rightwing media.

2.

Easter ‘08, yet more tragedy struck the Iraqi people as they came to the end of fasting under religious observance and were killed in large numbers while crowding to the supermarkets. In so far as a discussion of current Iraqi / American affairs, these bombings counter the strongly held contention of some that Arabic Extremism stems primarily from the Muslim faith. This story took only passing notice in newsmedia and is completely under-referenced in discussions of Middle-Eastern affairs.

3.

Two people were killed in a Knoxville, Tennessee church supposedly for their liberal beliefs in the past year. Is it pure the conjecture of liberals that this man was listening to right wing radio or sites to influence his actions or is there any evidence of this? The story has gone all but unnoticed and becomes increasingly ‘old news’ and less relevant each day in the ever faster and faster news-cycles. This again appears at face-value to be a strong case for the fact that the fear of political defacement or civil liability among newsmedia giants prevents certain ’taboo’ stories from reaching the proper level of amplification.

4.

An unknown individual leaked a false-credibility internet article claiming the credentials of Maureen Dowd during the 2008 presidential election. According to Snopes.com, this began in a chain e-mail and was picked up by certain low-credibility websites thereafter. Has any government agency investigated this matter or made any concerted effort to find this person who sought to interject false and illegal campaign coverage on contributions into the electoral process? Has not one newsmedia agency in America the will to run this story as a perfect example of the importance of credible information sources in an election year?

Eric Lightborn

http://americapress.wordpress.com

December 21st 2008