The Most Honest 3 & A Half-Minutes On Television!

I really can’t stand so-called “reality television.” I consider it junk-food for the mind of the simple. I don’t find it the least bit engaging, appealing, nor fulfilling.
I much prefer the days of scripted television (although some would argue that “reality TV” is scripted to a major extent), where ideas were generated by talented writers, who engaged our imaginations and gave us something to think about. Back in those good ‘ol days of responsible and artistic television, writers, producers, directors, and other production staff actually contributed something to the political and social discourse (e.g. “All In The Family” & “Good Times” from the 1970s) of the country. After the mid-90’s, television, the artistic aspect of broadcast television as well as our collective mental capacities plummeted; not coincidentally at the same time. Since then, we are spoon-fed opinions and ideologically bound (e.g., Melissa Harris-Perry--too liberal--and such pundits on the left, and Rush Limbaugh and his crowd--too stupid--on the right).
Enter: HBO’s new scripted series, the Newsroom. Although I haven’t watched this series, if it is anything as intellectually compelling as the first 3-or so minutes of the series first airing, I may have gained a small bit of hope with regard to engaging, thought-provoking television. I’m not going to bother with a set-up for this first scene. I will just that you watch it and open your mind to the overall message of actor Jeff Daniel’s character.



Adding to the video's message, we live in a politically (and socially) polarized society where solutions—any solutions—and /or proposed policies tend to be either interpreted or characterized as “bad” or even “job killing” if they go against someone’s ideological bent. We are no longer the nation of venturing pioneers, whether in the realm of the geographical or the intellectual.
Those of us with a particular belief system rarely expand our minds wide enough to allow our beliefs to be challenged by additions to our understanding of the way the universe (or even our country) works. We spout party lines just because—much like religion—we heard someone else say it, and/or it validates a preconceived mindset that we bring to the table, instead of bringing the empty plate of an open mind to the table and asking to be served.

Just a little food for thought this early AM.

Read More

A Congress We Can Work With...Just A Thought!

Some time ago, I posted a couple of pieces about the entitlement mentality that Congress seems to exhibit either by way of the legal perks that it bestows on itself, or the behavior of it's members (Read "Anthony Weiner, Power, & Promiscuity," "Congressional Ethics & Why We Deserve Corrupt Officials," and "It's Good To be The King...Or Maybe A Congressman" if you get the chance). Unfortunately, neither received as much attention as some of my other previous postings...a fact I attribute to the selective amnesia that die-hard leftists or right-wingers suffer from as they make the claim that I am either a "closet liberal" or "conservative fascist," depending on which ideological blinders they are wearing at the time of reading.
However, I recently came across a mythical (also unfortunately) online petition--which actually is the basis of several real online petitions--that calls for putting the members of Congress on an even keel with the rest of us, and eliminating the sense of entitlement among that particular political class. The "Congressional Reform Act of 2012" reads as follows:

Click to enlarge proposal

Obviously, the purpose of this proposal is to help communicate to Congress the frustration the American people have in regards to the ideologically-based gridlock we have seen in the legislative body in recent years (thanks primarily to the counter-productive influences of monkey-wrenches like the No-Tax-Under-Any-Circumstance and the Tea Party crowd on the Right, and the Abortion-Under-Any-Circumstance and Let's-Redefine-Marriage crowds on the Left).
Now, with that bit of wishful thinking rolling around in your heads, take a moment and participate in our poll on the proposed Congressional Reform Act of 2012...

Read More

The DNC Convention...Fact Check Summary!

Well, the first night of the Democratic National Committee Convention is in the history books. And true to expectations, there was the usual level of truth-bending of facts in the speeches--although not to the extent of the conscious distortions of reality and revisionism exhibited by most of the speeches during the Republican National Committee Convention last week.
Thankfully, there are a few nonpartisan organizations--albeit underused & under appreciated in the Grand Scheme--who work to sift through the partisan spin of electoral politics and campaigns to research whether or not claims of our elected and office-seeking leaders represent reality. And thanks to the good people over at FactCheck.org, the statements made during last night's opening speeches of the DNC Committee were put to the test of credibility.

Democratic Disinformation from Charlotte
Posted on September 5, 2012

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — We heard a number of dubious or misleading claims on the first night of the Democratic National Convention:

The keynote speaker and others claimed the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, would raise taxes on the “middle class.” He has promised he won’t. Democrats base their claim on a study that doesn’t necessarily lead to that conclusion.
The keynote speaker, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, also said there have been 4.5 million “new jobs” under Obama. The fact is the economy has regained only 4 million of the 4.3 million jobs lost since Obama took office.
Castro also insisted Romney and Ryan would “gut” Pell Grants for lower-income college students. Actually, the Ryan budget calls only for “limiting the growth” of spending for the program, and Ryan has said the maximum grant of $5,550 would not be decreased.
A Democratic governor said Romney “left his state 47th out of 50 in job growth.” Actually, Massachusetts went from 50th in job creation during Romney’s first year to 28th in his final year.
Two advocates of equal-pay legislation said women make 77 cents for every dollar men earn. That’s true on average, but the gap for women doing the same work as men is much less, and not entirely or even mostly the result of job discrimination.
A union president accused Romney of seeking “a government bailout” for “his company.” Not really. In fact, Romney negotiated a favorable but routine settlement with bank regulators on behalf of a former company, the one he had left to form his own Bain Capital firm. No taxpayer funds were involved.
Multiple speakers repeated a claim that the Ryan/Romney Medicare plan would cost seniors $6,400 a year. That’s a figure that applied to Ryan’s 2011 budget plan, but his current proposal (the one Romney embraces) is far more generous. The Congressional Budget Office says it “may” lead to higher costs for beneficiaries, but it can’t estimate how much.
Rep. James Clyburn engaged in partisan myth-making when he said “Democrats created Social Security” while Republicans “cursed the darkness.” History records strong bipartisan support in both House and Senate for the measure President Roosevelt signed in 1935.

Note to Readers

Our managing editor, Lori Robertson, is on the scene in Charlotte at the convention center. This story was written with the help of the entire staff, based in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. We are vetting the major speeches at this convention for factual accuracy, holding Democrats to the same standards we applied in last week’s coverage of the Republican convention.

Reprinted from Fact Check.org (September 5, 2012)

The takeaway here is simple: That in order to make informed choices as voters, people should get off their lazy butts, turn off their favorite belief-validating talking head, push whatever narrow little political ideology they hold dear to out of remains of their narrow little minds, and actually research the claims and slogans shouted by politicians!

Read More

The DNC Convention, Day 1 (...or, "The Empire Strikes Back!")

There are very few individuals, especially politically, that I admire. The few that I do admire span the length and dept along the ideological spectrum; those who I do admire either set out to help, empower, unite, or set an example for others insomuch as uplifting the human spirit.
As I watched the Republican National Committee Convention held in Tampa last week, I did so with a personal motive. I set out to see whether I might find within their ranks a few individuals I could count among the few political figures that I admire. But in watching and listening to the various speeches and presentations, I was hard-pressed to find a Jack Kemp, Alan Keyes, Colin Powell, or even a Bob Dole among them! I saw no example of an objective analysis of the various sociopolitical and economic issues we have in this country.
Tonight, as I set out to watch the Democratic National Committee Convention in Charlotte, I don’t expect to find any among their current number…with the slight exception of President Obama. Surprisingly, I found myself admiring the video tribute to one of their late members, Ted Kennedy. Not because Kennedy was of the few politicians among the Democrats who could actually get anything done sans most of the leftists ideological rhetoric—although there were instances of that too with him—but because embedded within the video was a bygone clip of the late Senator’s 1994 debate with then Senate challenger Mitt Romney which had to have hit the Romney campaign hard enough to knock over an empty chair!

Fresh from the internet, take a look at the tribute…


The political impact of the video notwithstanding, I still have a hard time placing myself in the Democratic Party camp...both they and especially the Republicans have allowed ideology to dictate their policies rather than reason.
Do I think they May Day-celebrating socialists flood their ranks? Of course not. No more than I think the Tea Party represents moderate conservatives who actually worked with liberals to get things done.
Instead of changing the corrupt culture of politics as usual, both have allowed the ideological extremes within their ranks to build a culture of partisanship and gridlock, fueled by fear-mongering, half-truths, and outright lies and power plays.
The take away here is that Democrats should learn to be like the late "Lion of the Senate" and command the respect inherent in reaching out to the other side of the aisle and work with their ideological opposites. The Republicans can learn not to confuse their ideology with conviction, and work with their ideological opposites rather than plot to oppose them based on their particular stance. And for goodness sake, stop lying to win!

Read More

Gun Control...No! Responsible Gun Control...Yes?

Click on map to enlarge

As I have stated on numerous occasions, I have always been a proponent of gun ownership in a society where police departments do not employ seers or psychics on their payrolls. Simply put, the police cannot be everywhere. And limiting gun ownership only hinders eligible, law-abiding gun owners from obtaining weapons; the criminals don't follow the laws anyway when it comes to securing weapons to victimize individuals, so what good would the laws do?
Outside of an outright ban by all citizens expect the military and the police (as is the law in Japan), the only way to curb gun violence like the kind we've seen lately in Colorado and Wisconsin is the application of common sense.
But this simple solution to address gun-based violence is every bit as difficult to implement as preventing the next shootings of hoodie-sporting black teenagers, Aurora movie theaters, or Sikh temple shootings? Why? Because gun ownership as an issue has become every bit as politically polarizing as any other issue in current-day America. The problem is that people would rather adhere to the dictates of their particular political ideology than to common sense. Case in point:
On July 26 of this year, the St. Petersburg City (Florida) Council passed it's "Even Zone Ordinance," outlining restrictions for what people attending the Republican National Convention could carry into the venue. Among the items prohibited from being carried into the RNC are 2 x 4 boards; Umbrellas; and Water guns. Among the items which ARE permitted to carried into the RNC? Concealed guns/weapons ("Should Guns be Allowed Inside RNC Event Zone?" July 29, 2012 ).
What's more, earlier this year, Gov. Rick Scott turned down Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn's request to issue an executive order allowing the city to ban concealed firearms in the zone. Is this responsible governing? What type of message does it send to ban toy guns which carry water, but allow real guns which shoot bullets into a public venue?

I see two solutions to the issue of addressing gun violence: The simple solution is to take the politics out of public policy, and create common sense laws. The more realistic solution is to ban political parties and their ideological rhetoric, which interferes with rational thinking.

Read More

This Is Not Your Father’s Republican Party!

I know from personal experience that debating hard-core political right- or left-wingers about inconsistencies in, and questions about the effectiveness of their respective ideologies is often an act of futility worthy of a Saturday morning knock at the door by a conversion-minded Jehovah’s Witness. In fact, one would do better trying to talk to a tree; at least when the wind blows, a tree will actually sway, resembling an actual response. For extreme and/or die-hard conservatives and liberals, their near religious adherence to their beliefs stands as a testament to why we have become so both politically and socially polarized as nation (e.g., The Tea Party & Christian Fundamentalists on the Right, and Gay Marriage & Rabid Feminists on the Left).
While doing a little research, I came upon a bit of political history from the election season of 1964, when current Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney also sought the Republican nomination for the White House). At the time, George Romney was a moderate conservative, supporting call for Civil Rights, and rejecting the rigid ideology of those supporting his one-time rival for the ’64 nomination—and standard-bearing symbol of ideological conservatism—Barry Goldwater (who opposed, among other things, the cause of Civil Rights). In protest of the staunch ideologues support of their ideological champion, Goldwater, Romney walked out of the 1964 Republican Convention, and warned:


As if those prophetic words weren’t enough, Goldwater himself warned about Fundamentalist Christians’ potential influence within the party…


If you want to know whether or not the warnings of these two moderate (by today's standards) Republicans were heeded, look at the platform adopted this week during the 2012 Republican Convention from Tampa, Florida...

Subtitled “We Believe in America,” the platform keeps its focus on the party’s traditional support for low taxes, national security and social conservatism. And it delves into a number of politically charged issues. It calls state court decisions recognizing same-sex marriage “an assault on the foundations of our society,” opposes gun legislation that would limit “the capacity of clips or magazines,” supports the “public display of the Ten Commandments,” calls on the federal government to drop its lawsuits challenging state laws adopted to combat illegal immigration, and salutes the Republican governors and lawmakers who “saved their states from fiscal disaster by reforming their laws governing public employee unions.” (Source; "Platform’s Sharp Turn to Right Has Conservatives Cheering," NYTimes, 08-28-12).

The message here is simple: (1) Not all change is good change; (2)The Republicans (as well as the Democrats) need to purge their ranks of the extremist elements, and get back to a time when the traditional family—not business—was the nucleus of policy and social influence in America; (3) Father knows best!

Read More

Does This Familiar? Spotting Lies & Weak Logic On The Campaign Trail, Conclusion

Politicians. In America, they are the epitome of contradiction…in every sense of the word. As a group, we tend to place them in an area of social value between used car salesman and sexual predator. They make grandiose promises, stretch the truth to the level of strained credibility, and seem to remember the value of the voter around only around election time. We all know this, but for some reason, we tend to favor one politician over another, simply because he or she shares—or validates—our particular ideological perspectives.
And in the rare instance where an individual actually seeks to enter the realm of politics with the intention of “changing the system,” that person invariably becomes drawn into the culture of privilege, the cycle of perpetually seeking re-election funds (while forgetting the voting electorate), and partnering up with Big Money…all to maintain their political positions. Even rarer, when an individual actually does work to avoid becoming a part of the political culture, we are quick to sling arrows and barbs at that person, simply because he/she doesn’t make the instantaneous changes we want them to, ignoring the fact that those beholden to the political status quo (i.e., political culture) are unyielding to the prospect of substantive systemic changes in the culture of business-as-usual, and simply will not allow it.
In seeking public office, politicians “reveal” perspectives, intentions, and policies of their opponents which, to be honest, insults the intelligence of the American electorate. Actually, what politicians tend to say about their opponents and their beliefs play into the subjective and willful ignorance the average voting American; they know we will not research beyond our preexisting, preconceived notions and/or beliefs. We tend to gravitate toward those politicians who support our beliefs rather than give us something to ponder.
We all know this, but we still play into this perennial sad comedy with all the predictability of tomorrow’s sunrise. And why should politician be straight with us, when we aren’t straight with ourselves? None of us wants to even consider that we are on the wrong side of a particular debate or policy. Knowing this, politicians continue doing what they do best…appeal to our sense of willful ignorance in relying on canned statements which validate what we already believe rather than what will actually make us think.
In part 1, I began reprinting a piece previously chronicled on National Public Radio (NPR), “A Guide To Spotting Pretzel Logic On The Campaign Trail” as a means of showcasing how We The People allow ourselves to be taken advantage of by politicians who manipulate our ignorance to their benefit by focusing on the stretches of truth exemplified by the current Presidential Election of 2012.

The NPR piece continues below:
*************************************************************************************

ARGUMENTUM AD LOGICAM, aka 'Straw man argument'

What it means: Falsely creating an overly simplistic or undesirable argument because it's easier to defeat than the real argument.

Why it works: "It basically works like an inoculation," Nelson says. "Just like a vaccine uses a weakened version of a virus to stimulate an immune response, you tell the person a weakened version of an argument so that when the real thing appears, they have an idea how to answer it. You explain someone's argument in a way that doesn't give it full strength, and then you knock it down."

Examples from the campaign trail:

Mitt Romney, July 18

[President Obama] said something ... which really reveals what he thinks about our country, about our people, about free enterprise, about freedom, about individual initiative, about America. ... I just want to say it exactly as he said it, speaking about small business and business of all kinds, he said this, 'If you've got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen.' "

The Take-Away: In his speech, Romney takes Obama's remark out of context to reduce a complex argument about the collective nature of success to a simple straw man, Clayton says. He adds: "So, he is characterizing the argument that Obama did make, but he's taking the worst possible, least relatable version of what Obama was saying and defeating that."

President Obama, Aug. 9

"We're certainly not going to follow Mr. Romney's lead and go back to the days when women didn't have control of their own health care choices."


The Take-Away: Obama hyperbolizes Romney's position, "making it sound like you're going back to the 1300s and that women would have no control over their health care choices whatsoever," Clayton says. "So, he's making the most dramatic, worst-case version of the argument. Then it's easy for him to make the case that his policies are better."

ARGUMENTUM AD TERROREM — 'Appeal to fear'

What it means: This is pretty self explanatory. It plays on someone's fear of a (real or imagined) undesirable consequence.

Why it works: "Fear motivates people, especially if they're already nervous," says Nelson. "If you've just lost your job or think you are going to lose your job and someone says, 'Things are going to get worse.' That will get your attention."

Examples from the campaign trail:

President Obama, Aug. 14


"Last week, we found out that Gov. Romney expects you, middle-class families, to pick up the tab for this big tax cut. ... [Economists say] Gov. Romney's tax plan would actually raise taxes on middle-class families with children by an average of $2,000."



The Take-Away: "He's basically playing off the fears of the middle class and saying Romney's going to saddle you with a larger and larger tax burden," Clayton notes.

Mitt Romney, May 28

"I wish I could tell you the world is safe today. It's not. Iran is rushing to become a nuclear nation. ... Pakistan is home to some 100 nuclear weapons. China's on the road to becoming a military superpower."


The Take-Away: "Not only are you telling your story, but you're trying to saddle your opponent with another narrative. So, the narrative you're trying to saddle Obama with is he's weak because he just wants to get along," Nelson says. "You're saying he's naive about the real threats and he's not minding the store."

*************************************************************************************
To be sure, government cannot solve every individual problem related to social and economic ills, but neither can the market. Our problems tend to be complex, begging complex solutions as well. The problem is that politics do not allow for substantive solutions of any kind as long as Americans continue to allow our own ignorance and inability to see beyond our beliefs to be manipulated by those individuals and groups seeking to secure their own political and/or economic interests.
I'm a firm believer in the power of education as a means of uplifting one's insight and perspective on the way the world works. As you ponder that thought, allow me to leave you with this:



If this offends you because you are an adherent to the thinking represented by these two individuals, then don't blame me...look inside yourself and ask if you are on the side of critical thinking!

Read More