Archive

Posts Tagged ‘glenn beck’

An Interesting Approach to the Glenn Beck Rally

August 29th, 2010 No comments

I’ll write more about the Glenn Beck rally once I’ve heard more about what actually took place there, but for now I just want to make a quick comment about a piece I read this morning on the Huffington Post, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Glenn Beck’s ‘Restoration of Honor’ Rally by Clarence B. Jones and Stuart Connelly—people who apparently helped organize the original March on Washington.

Written before the rally happened, this piece is essentially saying, “The legacy of Martin Luther King does not belong to any specific group. If Mr. Beck wants to champion the values of the Civil Rights Movement, he has our blessing.”

The obvious reaction is to laugh, as it’s obvious Beck isn’t doing anything close to championing the true values of the Civil Rights Movement, and that he’s actually crapping on the memory of MLK by choosing the anniversary of the “I Have a Dream” speech as the date of his rally.

He chose this date because he knew it would create a controversy, get the lefties yelling at him and thus cast himself in the role of the courageous hero standing against overwhelming liberal opposition. Those who’ve lambasted Beck for this are playing right into his hands.

But this strategy—the “God bless” strategy—is much better.

Just imagine if instead of mocking the Tea Party people, deriding them all as racists and dismissing everything they have to say, the entire progressive movement collectively said to them, “We think it’s wonderful that you are so concerned with the future of America that you’re willing to get out and march. We solute your patriotism. Now let’s talk about what the REAL problems are and how we fix them.”

  • Share/Bookmark

Glenn Beck’s Fools’ Gold

August 23rd, 2010 1 comment

Why anyone takes Glenn Beck seriously is beyond me. Here’s him invoking the attacks of 9/11 to shill for Goldline, his biggest sponsor:

Here is a guy with a clear financial interest in making people think that civilization is about to collapse. Of course he’s going to go over-the-top and constantly tell everyone that the sky is falling, that Barack Obama is destroying the country, that the communists are taking over, the Muslims are invading, and that our only defense is to be ready to take up arms against the government and bring down the system.

Of course, once the system is toppled you’re going to need some sort of currency, and paper money won’t be worth anything.

However, here’s a thought that just doesn’t occur to people:

What makes you think that if civilization collapses, gold is going to be worth anything either?

Currency only has value insofar as people agree it has value. Without a system in place to guarantee that value, paper is just paper and you might as well wipe your ass with it.

But what are you going to do with gold? They’re just shiny rocks, after all. Just as useless as paper if not moreso (you can’t even wipe your ass with it).

Sorry, Glenn Beck viewers who think they’ve made some kind of incredibly wise investment and are now safe and secure should civilization crumble, but you’ve wasted your money. The human race is past the time in its history when everyone agrees that these shiny rocks have value.

If I’m living in a post-apocalyptic world and Glenn Beck comes to my farm asking to trade some of his shiny gold coins for food, I tell him to get lost unless he can offer something of real value.

Food, labor, and guns will be the only real forms of currency in that world. At least Glenn Beck’s viewers have plenty of that last one.

  • Share/Bookmark

The Fox News Administration

July 25th, 2010 No comments

I don’t know about you, but I don’t remember voting for Glenn Beck for president. I don’t think many Obama supporters, upon casting their vote in 2008, were hoping that once president he would bend over backwards to do everything he possibly could to appease Fox News. I could be wrong—maybe Obama voters were really hoping for a president who would ignore progressives and listen only to the likes of Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity—but somehow I find that hard to believe.

Excuse me for ranting but I’ve got the need. Cenk Uygur’s epic rant over the Shirley Sherrod debacle on Wednesday’s Young Turks got me fired up. Between that and a dozen other columns and blog entries I’ve read these last couple of days, it’s clear that this story is far more significant than I initially realized.

At first my anger was directed almost entirely at Fox News. I couldn’t believe how so many people can still see them as an actual news organization when they clearly have a political agenda and will rush to broadcast any story that fits their pre-existing narrative with a deliberate disregard for what the actual facts are. Their #1 agenda is to do political harm to Obama. When presented with a heavily-edited video that seemed to show an employee of Obama’s department of agriculture boasting about how she discriminated against a white farmer, they didn’t waste a single moment checking to see whether it was what it appeared to be.

They could have found the entire unedited video but didn’t. They could have tried to contact Sherrod for her side of the story but didn’t. Most egregiously, they didn’t even try to contact the white farmers who were supposedly the victims of this discrimination, as if they had they would have learned—as the rest of the country learned when actual journalists stepped onto the scene—that Sherrod actually helped them save their farm, and that the story she’d been telling in that video was about how she learned that it was wrong to discriminate based on color.

But the Obama White House fired Shirley Sherrod before any journalism was done—before any basic questions were even asked. Sherrod told reporters that she actually had to pull over to the side of the road and submit her resignation via text message because she had to be gone by the time Glenn Beck went on the air.

Brillliant move on the White House’s part. Obviously they learned their lesson from the Van Jones fiasco, when they let Fox News hammer them for days before finally getting rid of him. No doubt they were patting themselves on the back for swift, decisive action when they got rid of Sherrod within a single news cycle.

Surely they had fixed everything. Fox News, upon seeing how quickly the administration caved in to them, would undoubtedly give him all the credit in the world and begin reporting how they’d been wrong about him all along—that he’s really not a reverse-racist and that he should be applauded for getting rid of Sherrod.

Of course not. Their number one agenda, remember, is to harm Obama politically. So when he did exactly what they wanted him to do, they hammered him for that! How could he fire her so quickly before checking all the facts? I can’t believe he just threw that poor woman under the bus like that. I mean, we’re Fox News so it’s not our job to check the facts but surely the White House has a responsibility to get the whole story before taking action.

And on that, they’re absolutely right. It’s not Fox News’s responsibility to report the truth—they are a propaganda network, not a news organization—but the White House does have a responsibility to make sure that the actions they take are based on hard facts and solid evidence.

But apparently that’s not how they operate. It would seem that they’ve got their eyes on Fox News at all times and stand ever poised to deflate whatever criticism that network might be leveling against them. They say Van Jones is a communist? Get rid of him. They say ACORN is full of criminals? Cut off its funding. Just please don’t hate us, right-wingers. We swear we’ll do whatever you say, Glenn Beck. Just stop saying mean things about us. What is it you want us to do? Just tell us who to fire and they’ll be out of here by 5 p.m.

Last year, in the midst of the health care debacle, I asked whether Obama was a pussy or a sell-out. I keep going back and forth on that question, but this drove me firmly back to the pussy side of the equation. Running the country based on Fox News talking points? How weak and pathetic can you possibly be?

What the hell do you think you’re actually accomplishing with this strategy? You think that if you keep caving in to Fox News, one day conservatives are suddenly going to change their minds about you? That if you keep compromising on all your progressive ideals and delivering watered-down, industry-friendly legislation, that right-wingers are going to start saying, “You know, maybe we were wrong about him. He might not be a radical socialist after all.”

News for you: That. Will. Never. Fucking. Happen.

So deal with it. Give up this absurd act of chasing your own tail all day long, turn off the goddamn Fox News channel, and run the country the way you would run it if there were no such thing as the Glenn Beck program.

Or better yet, listen to both sides. Progressives have criticisms too, and theirs are actually based in reality. Instead of only taking Bill O’Reilly’s advice, try listening to Rachel Maddow for once. Her advice is actually designed to help you.

The Shirley Sherrod thing, in itself, is just a small story. But taken in the larger context of the way Barack Obama has been conducting his administration, it’s one of the most important political events of his presidency. It’s one of those Wizard of Oz moments when the curtain is drawn back and you see who’s really running the show.

The strategy is clear: Don’t waste any time worrying about what liberals and progressives are saying because liberals and progressives don’t matter. They will never vote for republicans, so you gain nothing by doing anything more than the bare minimum to appease them. You win elections by appealing to swing-voters, to the moderate center, to the people who want to see both parties working together in a bipartisan fashion to accomplish things in Washington. When conservatives criticize you, you should immediately respond to that criticism in order to show how much of a centrist you are and how much you’re willing to listen to the other side.

The strategy is also dead wrong. I don’t know who this imaginary moderate centrist voter is, but I’ve never met him. Is there a single American voter who wasn’t sure about Obama until he dropped the public option, watered-down financial reform, called for more offshore oil drilling, fired Van Jones and de-funded ACORN? Seriously, I want to know how many people will go to the polls and vote for democrats this Fall because Obama proved to them that he’s not ‘too liberal’.

It’s complete and utter bullshit, and it’s so frustrating that Obama is so wrapped up inside his Washington bubble that he can’t even see it. He thinks that Bush’s approval ratings were so low because he spent too much time appeasing his base and never compromising with the other side. Wrong—Bush’s approval ratings were so low because everything he did as president was a total disaster. But at least he got shit done.

Why don’t you try that strategy for awhile, Obama? Why don’t you take a “Bring ‘em on” approach to Fox News and let them say whatever the hell they want to say while you deliver on the Change you promised? The Washington punditocracy will no doubt say you’ve gone off the deep-end, that you’re drifting perilously to the left and that this center-right country won’t stand for it. But you know what? You might find that in the Fall, liberals and progressives will actually come out and vote instead of staying home. You might even find that these all-important centrist-moderates you’re so concerned about actually come out and vote for democrats as well because…golly gee…it turns out they didn’t actually care about bipartisan posturing as much as they cared about government actually getting shit done.

Wake up, Obama. You’ve handed control of the country over to Fox News and you wonder why you’re heading for a failed presidency. In 2012 you should just let voters write in Glenn Beck’s name instead of yours so he can run the country directly without a middle-man.

  • Share/Bookmark

Glenn Beck’s Genius Rally Controversy

July 2nd, 2010 2 comments

Progressives need to stop and think for a moment sometimes before laughing at their political opponents for things that appear to be stupid follies but are actually brilliant strategic calculations.

Glenn Beck plans to hold a rally to promote his new book The Plan on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech, and the latest news is that he apparently forgot to obtain a permit.

Bullshit. He knew exactly what he was doing when he began promoting the rally and inviting people even before securing the permit. He deliberatly chose the date of MLK’s famous speech to provoke his political enemies on the left into trying to block the rally. Now he’s made an enemy of Al Sharpton, one of the most reviled public figures among the political right. This is exactly the kind of fight he wants–it will no doubt boost his ratings and get more people showing up to the now-controversial rally if it takes place.

Progressives–please don’t take the bait. This is a win-win for Glenn Beck. If he gets to hold the rally, he’ll look like a hero who stood up to those goddamned liberals and won. If the National Park Service acquiesces to the protesters and denies Glenn Beck his permit, he’ll look like a martyr whose patriotic message was silenced by those goddamned government bureaucrats.

Either way, you can count on him crying about it:

  • Share/Bookmark

“This is God’s Country”

May 19th, 2010 No comments

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Forget all you learned about how the United States was the first country ever to be founded under no particular religion. According to right-wing political celebrities such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, the United States of America is indisputably a Christian nation. In recent speeches, both have declared that this is “God’s country” and that its founding documents are every bit as sacrosanct as Biblical Scripture. This is the kind of claim that drives me insane, as I just can’t grasp how so many people just accept it without question when the level of absurdity is literally astronomical.

Evangelicals and other fundamentalist Christians believe that the creator of the entire universe is a being much like themselves, which is already ridiculous. If they bothered to learn anything at all about science and cosmology, they’d know that human beings are one of billions of species who have ever walked the earth, that the earth itself is one of potentially trillions of planets orbiting the hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy, which is merely one of hundreds of billions of galaxies or more in the universe. Do they seriously believe that of the hundreds of billions of galaxies God created, our Milky-Way is His favorite one? That of the trillions of planets in this galaxy, Earth is His favorite? That of the billions of species that have come into being and passed into extinction throughout this time, human beings are His favorite? And of every nation that has ever existed throughout history, the United States of America is His favorite?

Please. This is obscenely irrational. If the history of the universe were condensed into one year, the amount of time humans have existed wouldn’t even amount to a full second. Recorded history is but the tiniest fraction of a second, and American history is merely a fraction of that fraction. If God really created untold trillions of worlds and waited billions upon billions of years so that one particular country in one of those worlds could come into being, then God is one strange character to say the least. And what interest does God have in America anyway? He waited billions of years for its formation so He could what? Help it win wars? Seriously, what does God want with us if we’re so important to Him?

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

One thing’s for sure—He couldn’t possibly be a fan of the United States government. There’s nothing these right-wingers loathe more than the government. So apparently God loves America but hates the American government. So it must be the people he loves. But wait, I thought half the people were damned godless liberals. America is filled with atheists and homosexuals and all kinds of other abominations, so I guess He really just loves churchgoing conservatives. He doesn’t love the United States of America—He loves the Red States of America.

And apparently there’s something intrinsically better about American churchgoing Christians than churchgoing Christians from other countries. Perhaps because America is the country He personally founded by, according to Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, guiding the hands of Thomas Jefferson as he wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Never mind that Jefferson didn’t write the Constitution—God obviously guided the hands of whomever it was that did.

After all, it certainly sounds divinely inspired:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
-Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, June-July 1776

No doubt about it—that’s some eloquent expression of passionate, righteous ideals for you. All men are created equal. What a brilliant concept. Definitely something for America to be proud of. And who knows? Maybe it did come from God. Just like the U.S. Constitution, a part of which reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
-Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the original United States Constitution

Wait a minute, what’s this “three fifths” business? If I’m reading this correctly, it would seem that when we calculate how many representatives each state should have in the federal government, “free Persons” are to count as 1 and “other Persons” (i.e. black people—slaves) are to count as 3/5. So all men are created equal…but black people are 2/5 less equal then white people. As for women…don’t even ask.

This perfect, divinely inspired document has since been amended to count minorities and women just as equally as everybody else, but you’d think if God was guiding the hands of those men who wrote it (themselves nearly as holy and sacred as the Apostles) He would have had them get it right the first time. Unless He really did mean for blacks to be counted as 3/5 of a person and those less holy men of subsequent generations went and fucked it all up by reconciling it with that “all men are created equal” idea that God wrote in that other document. Whether one contradicts the other is just another Great Mystery—like how some passages in Genesis 2 contradict some passages in Genesis 1. Or maybe what God really meant was “all white men are created equal to other white men, all black men are created equal to other black men, all Hispanic men are created equal to other Hispanic men” and so on. I suppose one could interpret it that way.

So it seems I’ve failed to defeat the claim. Just because there are trillions of trillions of planets in the universe doesn’t mean this can’t be God’s favorite. And just because the United States of America has only existed for less than the blink of a cosmic eye doesn’t mean it can’t be God’s favorite country—even though He hates its government and half the people in it. Just because the Constitution contradicts the ideals of the Declaration of Independence doesn’t mean they couldn’t have both been divinely inspired. And in the mind of an evangelical Christian, if something that feels good to believe even might be true, it’s safe to assume that it must be true.

Thomas Jefferson, a deist who believed that God merely set the universe in motion and didn’t interfere in human affairs, a scholar who actually published his own version of the New Testament with all of the miracles and supernatural claims removed, must have been divinely inspired by the God whom he believed did not divinely inspire people to write the founding documents for a country which he and the other [Holy] Founders intended to be a Christian Nation. So all of us liberals who insist on a firm wall between Church and State should just shut up and face the facts—unless you’re a Christian, you’re not fully American, because the two are and were designed to be intertwined.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

  • Share/Bookmark

Judging Obama

December 3rd, 2009 1 comment

The president of the United States is the most frequently judged person on earth. Everything about him is analyzed and scrutinized by everyone on the planet who is aware of him, which is just about everyone. Whether you’re the editor of a major political newsmagazine or some kid in a tribe in Africa, you have to have some opinion about the president. There is of course an incredibly broad spectrum of opinions—Bush was perceived as everything from an incompetent pea-brained moron to an angel of God sent here to lead America to a glorious triumph of Good against Evil—but the spectrum has perhaps never been wider than with the current president.

Obama is perceived as a savior by some and as the Anti-Christ by others. To some he’s an inspirational, transformational world leader, while to others he’s a bloodthirsty fascist, the second coming of Hitler. Unfortunately, most of these perceptions are not based at all on fact, but come only secondary to a personal judgment. Those who like him personally will think him a great leader. Those who hate him, whether because he’s black or a liberal or any number of other reasons, will see him as evil. The latter, far more than the former, are guilty of making judgments based not at all on facts and reasoning but simply on things they hear about him—usually wild conspiracy-theories—that they choose to believe are true because it fits neatly into their often distorted worldview.

Personally, I’ve tried to avoid letting my opinion be swayed by anything other than his actions. Doing my best to remain as objective as possible, I’ve allowed my perception time to solidify over the past couple of years of observing him. As a presidential candidate, I had a lot of admiration for him. He seemed to be defying conventional wisdom, running an intelligent, respectable campaign and treating the American people, unlike the previous president, as though most of them had a high-school education. Of all the candidates in the field at the beginning of 2008 (except for extreme long-shots Dennis Kucinitch and Ron Paul), Obama seemed the most likely to be the genuine article, a person whose desire to bring about positive change, rather than pure selfish ambition, was behind his run for office.

But then he was elected, and proceeded to behave like every other recent president, always taking the cautious, middle-of-the-road approach even though the times clearly call for bold action, and showing tremendous deference to the financial elites even though the times clearly call for someone to stand up to them and loosen their stranglehold over the economic welfare of the country. He compromised on the economic stimulus, on regulating the banks, on health care reform, and now Afghanistan, in each case choosing the path somewhere between the center and the far right. Just like every other recent president.

And slowly my perception solidified into two possibilities which I wrote about a few months ago: either he’s a pussy or a sellout. And now that some additional time has gone by and the picture of who this man is has had more time to develop, I am ready to conclude that he is probably a sell-out.

What do I mean by this? If he is, in fact, a sell-out, then who in fact has he sold-out to?

I’m not entirely sure of the answer, because I don’t have all the facts about who really calls the shots at the highest levels of power in the world, but it’s certainly to people more powerful than him, the people who really run the show in Washington and beyond.

My cousin Jason recently recommended I watch a couple of documentaries by Alex Jones, a film-maker dismissed by the mainstream media as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. These documentaries, “The Obama Deception” and “Fall of the Republic” put forward the claim that Barack Obama was groomed by a cabal of wealthy financial elites since long before his presidential run, that these elites have nothing less than global domination and the mass enslavement of humanity under one world government as their goal, and that they handpicked Obama to be president because through the force of his personal charm and rhetorical skill, he could fool the public into supporting policies they would think would be helping them but in reality would only serve the interests of the financial elites.

Ten months ago I would have dismissed these claims as ludicrous. Today, I can’t be so sure.

Now don’t get me wrong—I don’t honestly believe that there is some sinister cabal of wealthy elites from all around the world plotting to enslave humanity. Many of the claims made by Jones are extreme leaps in logic. He presents genuine facts, but then introduces conclusions that do not at all follow from those facts alone. For example, there is an association known as the Bilderberg group made up of hundreds of the world’s most wealthy and powerful leaders that meets every few years in secret to discuss global affairs. This is all true and verifiable, but it does not entail that when these people get together, they are plotting world domination. It is true that the Federal Reserve, a private institution, has an absurd amount of control over the U.S. economy and they tamper with interest rates to serve their own economic interests, but it does not follow that they are working towards merging all countries into a singular fascist state with a common currency and dictatorial control over every aspect of the lives of all human beings.

I personally reject these conclusions because I don’t believe that you can put any hundred people in a room together and expect that they’ll all agree on anything. Let alone put hundreds of powerful people from all over the world together and expect them to agree on a common vision for a new world government. Each party has their own national and self-interests, and while many of their goals may be mutual, it’s absurd to think that they have all agreed to one particular structural model for a “New World Order”. When I look at history I see the summation of a multitude of small decisions made by many powerful people for the sake of their own short-term self-interest, rather than one big decision made by a single center of power for the sake of a long-term vision for humanity. If humanity is on a giant ship, I don’t believe there is any person or group of people at the helm. We’re flying blind, not being steered.

However, that doesn’t mean there aren’t very powerful unseen hands influencing things in their favor. In fact, you’d be hopelessly naïve not to think so. Many of these hands are even out in the open for all to see—health insurance giants, Wall Street CEOs, and defense contractors are not hiding the fact that they lobby politicians to do their bidding. At least when it comes to Congress, we can see this process in action in the form of campaign contributions. If the American people didn’t have these powerful forces with opposing interests to contend with, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have ended long ago (or would never have begun in the first place), we’d have an efficient single-payer health-care system, and the middle-class would still exist and be prospering. It has never been clearer than it has been this year that the corporate giants have far more sway and influence over our elected “representatives” than we do.

But what is not seen is how the financial elites exercise their influence within the executive branch. There is certainly communication between them and the White House but we know next to nothing about the channels through which this communication flows, what kinds of deals are made, and just how much sway they actually have over the president. We don’t know how much of Obama’s rhetoric is an expression of his genuine beliefs, and how much is just crafty salesmanship.

We can only look at the results and make an educated guess. So let’s look at them. The stock market continues to rise even as unemployment continues to soar. Wall Street banks are making record profits as people continue to lose their homes and businesses. The health care legislation that was supposed to at least include a public option to compete with the private insurance cartel has been stripped to nothing more than a few extra regulations and a public option so weak that it will basically serve as a dumping ground for the insurance companies’ most expensive clients and therefore cost more than private insurance, and that’s only if it manages to survive at all! I don’t even need to mention the individual mandate that will drive millions of new customers into the hands of the cartel—a huge gift to the industry. And as for foreign policy, just this week it was announced that 30,000 additional troops will be sent to Afghanistan in a last-ditch effort to win an unnecessary war.

It seems that the Powers That Be who got everything they wanted during the Bush administration are still getting everything they want from the Obama administration. This is Change that nobody can honestly believe in anymore

So by all appearances it would seem that Obama has sold out, that he has let himself become a puppet of the very same elites who were pulling Bush’s strings. The question is—what was the price?

As I said, we know nothing about what goes on behind the scenes in the executive branch, so we can’t be sure if Obama, deep in his soul, really believes in his high-minded rhetoric and is just doing the best he can within the existing power-structure, or whether he shares the philosophy of the powerful elites and is happy to serve them. Several months ago I believed that he was just trying to take things slowly, not ruffle too many feathers, and that once he’d been in office a little longer he might start taking the bold steps necessary to really fix the major problems this country is facing. Now I don’t think he’s really trying to fix anything—now I think he’s just trying to keep things exactly as they are to stretch out this unsustainable state of world affairs for as long as it can possibly be sustained.

Up until now I’d given him the benefit of the doubt—I thought he was really trying to improve things, but for all I knew he wasn’t. Now I think he’s not really trying to improve things, but for all I know he is.

For all I know, he really did believe in all the things he said as a candidate and just found once he got into office that he simply couldn’t accomplish them, and that the best he could do with Wall Street was impose a few extra weak regulations, the best he could do with health care was to impose individual mandates, and the best he could do with the military industrial complex was send a few less troops than they asked for and announce an arbitrary date for a withdrawal that probably won’t be abided by anyway. Maybe he really wanted to regulate the banks to prevent future financial crises and bailouts, to make health care affordable and available to everyone, and to end the military conflicts Bush began, but those more powerful than him warned him that unless he was willing to compromise on these things, they would engineer the loss of his presidency or possibly even his life. But now even I’m getting deep into wild-conspiracy-land.

As for conspiracy-theories, it seems there are more about Obama than there are about Area 51, and millions of Glenn Beck-following morons are quick to believe any and all of them—even those that contradict the others. To these people I’d say that you have every right to be angry, that what drives you to get out and protest against your government is a positive force and we’d be a much better country if we were all willing to go that far, but you’re being duped by the very same elites you’re so angry at. They’ve successfully misdirected your anger from where it should be and sent it flying in all different directions, from the president’s secret plot to let his fellow Muslim terrorists take over America, to ACORN’s methodical dismantling of democracy, to the democrats’ secret plans to kill senior citizens and impose mandatory abortions.

Let’s be honest. The government warrants criticism. The president warrants judgment. But if you’re going to judge Obama, don’t judge him on a perception that’s so blatantly false as to be laughable—that he’s some kind of fascist who is rapidly destroying everything America stands for. He’s not changing a damned thing, let alone the fabric of our society. Our society isn’t being suddenly destroyed by a crazed Muslim terrorist from Kenya who hates white people and freedom. It’s being slowly eaten away at by giant corporations who have enlisted Obama—either easily or with some resistance, but in any case quite successfully—to continue advancing their agenda.

So be angry. Judge Obama. But do yourselves a favor and do some research, separate the facts from the lies, the ludicrous conspiracy-theories from the reasonable ones, and judge him for what he really is and what he’s really doing, not whatever you want to believe he’s doing just because you hate him personally.

  • Share/Bookmark

Right-Wing Extremism

June 13th, 2009 2 comments

Much has been written this past week about the recent incidents of violence performed by a few right-wing wackos, and many have placed the blame squarely where it belongs: with the mainstream media, particularly Fox News. Normally the commentary of right-wing bloviators wouldn’t be much of an important issue, but it has become so due to the current political climate in which a black democratic president is actively trying to implement a progressive agenda. So although I can’t say much that hasn’t already been said, I might as well add my own little rant to the chorus.

Naturally, those at Fox News who have been gleefully fanning the flames of hatred and paranoia—such as Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly—not only believe they bear no responsibility for the violence, but they actually see themselves as the victims in all of this. Fingers are only being pointed at them because others in the media are jealous of their high ratings, and it’s all part of some secret plot hatched by the government and the liberal elites at MSNBC to take down Fox News, the only network honourable enough to report the truth without a radical left-wing bias.

To a certain extent, they’re right. When you get right down to it, the primary responsibility lies purely with the shooters themselves. Glenn Beck didn’t specifically tell Richard Poplawski to fire an AK-47 at a bunch of police officers in Pittsburgh—he only gave him the idea that Obama was trying to take away his guns. A completely false proposition as Obama hasn’t even touched second amendment issues since taking office, but how could Beck have known anyone would start shooting police before running a careful fact-check? Bill O’Reilly didn’t tell Scott Roeder to murder abortion doctor George Tiller—he just repeatedly called the doctor a “baby-killer” with blood on his hands who for $5000 would kill anyone’s baby for any reason, even just for being depressed. A ridiculous charge seeing as how most of Tiller’s clients were women at risk of harm or death, but how could O’Reilly have possibly imagined that anyone would take his words so seriously? And finally, the slew of right-wing radio talk show hosts who continue to deny the Holocaust and insist that the Jews are running a worldwide conspiracy have absolutely nothing to do with James Von Brunn walking into the Holocaust museum in Washington D.C. and opening fire. They obviously never actually wanted any actual Jews to be killed…right?

A few months ago, the conservative news pundits were all up-in-arms over the fact that the director of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, issued a report warning of a rising threat of right-wing extremism. Never mind that the report also warned of the threat of left-wing cyber-terrorism, or that the DHS under Bush was also keeping tabs on right-wing extremist groups—this was all the proof they needed that Obama really is a totalitarian communist fascist Nazi dictator hell-bent on going after anyone who disagrees with him politically.

To be fair, it’s not like anyone suggested that he was building concentration camps or anything…oh wait…Glenn Beck did. He just said he “couldn’t confirm” if it was true, so it’s not like you can blame him if anybody believed it.

Napolitano apologised for the language in the report, thus making it clear that right-wing extremists are not a danger—they are our friends and neighbours who just happen to have a few simple differences with the president in terms of policy. It’s the president’s spending that they hate, not the fact that he’s black. They would have been protesting against Bush if he had spent the country into unprecedented levels of debt…oh wait…he did? And none of them were protesting? Well, I’m sure it still has nothing to do with race.

The point is, there are a lot of right-wing wackos out there who are already going nuts over the idea of a black president, and if you get them angry and paranoid enough, if you keep reinforcing this idea that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim sleeper agent sent by terrorists to destroy American values, take money from successful white people and give it to poor black welfare queens, strengthen affirmative action laws so that businesses may only hire people of colour, redefine marriage as a union between any two physical objects (man and man, man and child, woman and horse, fetus and microwave, etc.), and make late-term abortions mandatory for all women, then maybe, just maybe a few of these nuts will get the idea that they ought to take matters into their own hands and start firing shots in defence of their country.

Of course, no conservative would ever go so far as to make any kind of suggestion that political change should be brought about by any means other than legal, democratic processes. Michele Bachman may have said she wanted people “armed and dangerous” over Obama’s tax plan, but this was just a figure of speech. Sure, Rush Limbaugh may have said something like, “If al-Qaeda wants to demolish the America we know and love, they better hurry, because Obama is beating them to it” but this was merely a substantive critique of the new administration’s foreign policy. And yeah, Glenn Beck may have had an entire special program called the “War Room” in which experts speculated about how an army of survivalists might take up arms against a communist Obama government, but that was all just hypothetical.

In all seriousness, there is plenty to criticise Obama about. He’s letting the Wall Street bankers continue their shenanigans at the expense of taxpayers, compromising our civil liberties by continuing some of the most egregious Bush-era policies with regards to detainees, continuing to enforce the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy which he promised to repeal, and letting the health insurance special interests have a seat at the table to negotiate over his already heavily-compromised health-care bill. Perhaps if there were people on the left willing to pick up a gun and open fire on the headquarters of a big Wall Street bank or a health-insurance company, one could justifiably claim that there are crazies out there willing to act on any biased reporting, and Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are just as much to blame for their impact as O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck.

But the thing is, while Olbermann and Maddow do have a clear leftist slant in their reporting, they actually report. They present the facts and then have a discussion about those facts. O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck, on the other hand, first spew out their opinions and then back them up with whatever facts they feel might be relevant, and if there are none they just invent some, like the fact that Obama is coming after your gun and might be building concentration camps for political opponents.

If you challenge any of these wingnuts, the first thing they’ll do is hide behind the First Amendment. If we criticise their speech, they say, we’re attacking their Constitutional rights! And yes, they do have a Constitutional right to spew out whatever hateful, paranoid, factually inaccurate bullshit they want. This is America, and you can’t be locked up for what you say.

But that doesn’t mean you should say it. And that’s all those on the left are saying when they criticise these commentators: You may be allowed to say these things, you may draw a large audience and generate a great deal of profit by saying this stuff, but that doesn’t mean you should fucking say it!

If these people love America even half as much as they pretend to, they might take a moment to pause and consider the genuine real-world impact this kind of speech has on society. Do they really think they’re helping the country by getting one segment of the population completely riled up, angry, afraid, and foaming-at-the-mouth-enraged over fake bullshit issues based on absolutely no substance? Do they see themselves as performing some kind of service? Perhaps they believe they are giving a voice to those disenfranchised Americans whom the black president is shamelessly ignoring on his crusade to advance the agenda of jews, gays, communists, and terrorists? If so, they would have to first believe that Obama really is on such a crusade, but if they’re that dumb they would be the ones listening to that bullshit and not the ones propagating it.

No, they know perfectly well that most of what they say is total horseshit propaganda designed to keep the established power-structure in power. They do it by convincing those most victimised by the establishment that their problems are actually caused by liberals. All they are doing is misdirecting rage.

There are two results of this: The first is that it makes it incredibly difficult for the president, who probably genuinely wants to advance a progressive agenda, to actually accomplish any progressive goals. The second is that a few crazy wingnuts start shooting people. And if the commentators insist they bear absolutely no responsibility for these acts of violence, they are simply wrong. Their speech may be legal, but it’s irresponsible and it’s dangerous. It validates ideas that should not be given any credence, and perpetuates a culture war that drives a society apart at the very moment it should be joining together.

The problems facing this country are too serious for this kind of shit to be tolerated. We should be worried about environmental degradation, climate change, nuclear proliferation, the collapsing economy and so on, but instead we’re all running around like chickens with our heads chopped off over the very idea that dangerous terrorists from Guantanamo might actually be allowed on U.S. soil! Never mind that they’d be held in supermax prisons from which no one—including the terrorists already confined in these places—has ever escaped. The liberals would make sure they get released so that they are free to hang out by school playgrounds and terrorize our children.

The debate in this country used to be between the left and the right. Now it’s between the center-left and the far far faaaaaaaaaaaaar right. The truth does not lie somewhere in between, but often way to the left. Right-wing commentators, and the mainstream media that enables them, shove the debate from the rational end of the spectrum to the batshit crazy, so we’re no longer debating any actual merits of any actual policies, but instead arguing over baseless accusations as though they are one of the legitimate sides of a two-sided argument. There are often several legitimate sides to an argument, but the far-right position is never one of them, and it’s being treated as though it is. This is poison for the national discourse, and as long as our discourse continues to be poisoned by these irresponsible propagandist bloviators appealing to the worst impulses in the worst members of society, the entrenched interests and the army of ignorant gun-toting racists they’ve got backing them up will continue to hold the rest of society hostage.

  • Share/Bookmark